Why should MLS cut the fee for St. Louis though? When they've got 10 other markets ready, able, and most importantly willing, to pay the fee they're asking for. Markets that do as much if not more to move the needle than St. Louis? I mean it seems clear this St Louis group don't have what it takes to be MLS owners if they're willing to let $60 million stop them. Better to accept that and move on from them then bring in an ownership group that doesn't have the fortitude to see MLS in St Louis through.
Because ever since I was a young pup, people have been talking "Saint Louis is the bestest soccer market evvvarrrr." No mention is made of the fact that they lost their old NASL (to Anaheim, of all places). Scant mention is made of AC St. Louis. The local colleges had a good run back in the day but pretty much haven't done dick in the last 40-50 years. And yet, we all are treated to the story of how STL is some soccer hotbed that would be a can't miss in the MLS - except for the pesky little fact that they just...keep...missing. Who knows - maybe MLS needs a replacement "threat" city since Sacramento is getting a bit stale in that regard. In any event, St. Louis will never be declared dead, because there's too many people in the Footy Press who have staked out a position that STL is still a Golden Opportunity for Soccer, if they could just get the right owner...and the right location...and the right stadium...and the right league...and, of course, the right subsidies.
I didn't say "should" But they could. It's a simple business transaction. If passing on $30m now would bring more later, than do it. This gate approach is very short-sighted.
Problem is they cut the fee for St Louis they have to cut it for the other team coming in with them too. They're not going to leave $60 million on the table ($30 mil from each entrant), just because the would-be St Louis owner is a cheap ass. Not when they have other would be owners who are not only willing to pay the full fee but willing to throw around $100+ million of their own money on stadia rather than beg a city/state for it. It comes down to a simple adage, "you pay, you'll play". St Louis' would be owner doesn't want to pay, so he's not going to play. Which sucks for St Louis, but it is what it is.
Phoenix making a strong push today with this Drogba signing: https://www.soccernation.com/didier-drogba-officially-joins-phoenix-rising-fc/ The league has options and ultimately, whoever brings the most value to the league will be admitted.
San Diego has Donovan, Phoenix has Drogba... It seems several of the bids have decided to go the Magic Johnson route.
Phoenix is really growing on me. The were most certainly the darkest horse going into expansion, not even being on the initial list of groups that MLS requested to send in applications. They seem to be doing everything right. It is still an uphill battle, but they have positioned themselves nicely. If bids like San Diego and Detroit fall through, they may just make it this round since none of the other bids are standing out (save Sacramento). The may even be able to do so if those bids stay strong. At the very least, they are making the USL team stronger and positioning themselves nicely for 27-28.
There is no requirement that MLS disclose that information. My point has nothing to do with St. Louis. My point is having a gate is a short-sighted business model. I've already stated, that I don't object to this group not getting in. But MLS needs to look at the overall picture. If you think a city will be successful for MLS over the years, having a gate is rather silly. MLS is free to structure the deal as they wish.
Actually it's a very long term business model. The league has had problems with uncommitted (Vergara) and undercapitalized (Horowitz) owners in the past. If you're not willing and able to pay the freight at the start, then the league will find someone who can - and be better off for it. Joey Saputo tried that nonsense in Montreal. First he balked at $10 million, then when the price was $40 million, he tried to get a discount based on what he had invested in Stade Saputo. In the end, he paid. I get that shit all the time as a photographer. People want my photos for free "it's good publicity". No, it would be good publicity that I give away photos for free. MLS is a business. And Saint Louis is just another location. It's not MLS's problem that potential ownership groups can't get their shit together in Saint Louis. In fact, it's a huge red flag. It's no longer 1996 or even 2007. Pretty much every expansion market is going to do fine. Some will do spectacularly, but they're all going to be fine. But the main reason why MLS owners aren't going to suddenly decide to drop the fee by $30MM is because what they're really doing with the expansion fee is reducing their own piece of the business. MLS is exploding right now and expansion candidate groups are not charities. I'm a Missourian. I'd love to have Saint Louis in the league. I'm pretty sure that the analysis MLS has put together on the expansion bids favors Saint Louis. But favor and $6.95 will get you a cup of fancy coffee, as it were.
MLS has to do what is best for MLS. StL would be a great addition but they have to find an acceptable Plan B. MLS has to "gather ye rosebuds while ye may" and go with the best applicants.
Not certain why you keep bringing St. Louis up. I've said numerous times that if $60M is an issue, than those owners shouldn't be in the league. But you're kind of making my point. MLS is certainly analyzing all of these bids. I assume their analysis shows, given the difference between metro areas, that City A has more long term profit potential than City B. Having a large check up front override that is asinine.
I agree with everything but your last sentence. I don't know why MLS has to go with any applicant. Expanding just to expand isn't an answer.
No, the check up front is probably the most important part. If you think I'm "making your point", then you must not know what your point is. MLS may prefer certain markets - all things being equal. But unless you can show that "things are equal (outside of the market side of things) then that doesn't really come into the equation. Perhaps you're too emotionally attached to the situation to comment objectively. Trust me, I understand the situation.
A potential ownership group isn't even going to get in the door if they don't have the full expansion fee though.. It's one way that MLS judges the "seriousness" of an ownership group..
Blue Testament handicaps the MLS expansion bids in the wake of St Louis's vote failure and Sacramento's bid being described as having fallen back in line with the other hopefuls after their ownership snafu. http://www.thebluetestament.com/201...hoenix-detroit-sacramento-lafc-power-rankings
I understand that. But MLS is currently a bit of a pyramid scheme. In most leagues, the TV contract is the money maker. Not so in MLS. One expansion fee is more valuable than the TV contract. So the top of the pyramid is making for more than the bottom of the pyramid. As to St. Louis getting a team, I'm far less concerned than I was years ago. All of these expansion fee money grabs have deluged the pool to the point that the overall talent level isn't growing. If STL, never gets a team, I'm ok with that.
I like how people totally overlook the role of SUM in the MLS equation. Oh, wait, that's wrong. I don't like that.
Are there any other expansion bids with: A) Downtown location, B) Site cleared, purchased and ready to build, C) Financing all lined up for both stadium and expansion fee, D) No pending election which can sink the whole deal? If the dunderheads at Blue Testament have any further insight as to the above, I'm all ears. Until then...
I think forum rules insist that you always include #hauptmanout when using the words ownership and trainwreck in the same sentence.