No, but there are more important things than a soccer team. I was never particularly crazy about the Fairgrounds being the site but I knew it was probably the easiest path. And as a libertarian independent I am not in favor of public financing of sports venues, although I know not all deals are created equal. Who knows, MLS might not even exist in another 10 years. Top tier American soccer leagues tend not to have a long shelf life. But I will have season tickets for the MLS team just as I have for the USL team and the PDL and NPSL teams before that.
What series of calamities would have to occur to even make that possible? The league has been growing for 15 years and has more financial stability and backing than ever. These billionaires have cost controls on venues in part to make it through down times. Worst case scenario I could see if the league stagnates and maybe slightly declines. I'd be surprised if a single club folded in next ten years, much less the whole league.
yeah I gotta root for this Nashville fairgrounds thing to stick for the good of the league. its highly ambitious, and was the only market of 12 that was able to afford MLS playing their fiddle too long. It would be super crappy if some mayor undid that for Nashville, IMO. If it works similar to federal and state level, the city council could override a mayoral veto with a 2/3rds vote. Given the previous vote, they certainly have that. Just get nervous to see something that was what most MLS supporters were hoping was a sure thing and now back on the rocks because of local government. I am surprised MLS isnt acting quicker because the message far and wide across the US (and Canada for that matter) is theyre not interested in these big fancy stadiums anymore for the most part..........for any sport. Even the NFL is gonna have a mini crisis on its hands with Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Cleveland, and maybe Buffalo in the 2020s when stadium deals expire. They already dodged a few bullets with Minnesota (after a BRUTAL local government dogfight) and Vegas taking the Raiders on. If its a city thats a done deal, MLS would be wise to pounce on it.
they can obviously take it away if the fairgrounds deal goes through, i think thats implied, and thats what there is grounds for slight worry about. the absolute last thing MLS needs is another long drawn out slogged complicated local government fight
I don't know what that means. Again, I'm not sure what you are suggesting MLS do to act more quickly in Nashville.
If the stadium deal, the whole foundation of why the award was given in the first place, is scuttled by a mayoral candidate..........then thats a sign the city did not live up to their end of the bargain. MLS could say "you didnt live up to your end of the bargain, no SSS, no MLS". If Nashville doesnt have funding for a stadium, or is blocked from the fairgrounds location by a mayor with enough city council votes, they can go back on the deal. Thats why this is scary. MLS is not gonna let a team in a........not SSS in Nashville. In theory, it looks like a hostile mayoral candidate could potentially scuttle a SSS at the fairgrounds site. Most of the mayoral candidates are hostile to the SSS. No SSS, no Nashville. MLS wont allow a team to play without one. MLS did well to move on Nashville, so I guess this is not on them, but the fact that Nashville went from green status to yellow status pretty quickly is at least quietly concerning. Then Nashville MLS would have to hope the currently veto-overruling city council vote number holds.
OK. That's what I was looking for. The change in the local government is the holdup here. The Metro Council voted 31-6 to approve the fairgrounds plan in November. In December MLS granted the franchise to the local ownership group. In March there was a proposal to rescind the November decision. That failed 16-8. Now there is talk by these mayoral candidates about changing the deal and some council members are saying they are reconsidering. I don't see what MLS or the local ownership group could have done differently to avoid this.
This is not a publicly funded stadium. That keeps getting thrown around but it just isn't true. Fake news.
No, but its not exactly privately funded either. Like I said, not all stadium deals are created equal. This one basically has the club borrowing against the city's debt. This seems less onerous than a lot of others financing deals but it still has Metro government issuing $225M in bonds, with the ownership group paying over time to retire the debt. There is still financial risk for the city. If stadia are so important and not a financial burden, why don't the billionaire owners just buy their own land and build their own facilities? No, don't bother answering. We know the answer. Why use your own money when you can convince other people to let you have theirs? And then years later when the stadium is no longer nice and shiny and new you can threaten to move if the fools don't fork over more money to build another one. This will happen with Nissan Stadium and probably Bridgestone Arean at some point. Who's to say it won't with the SSS?
Yes, MLS is much more stable than every other U.S. league to come before it. It just seems to me like a bit of a pyramid scheme. Gotta keep bringing in new investors paying huge franchise fees. We may get to see the books for MLS if they are forced to show them as part of the whole Columbus fiasco. That will be interesting.
Except in a Pyramid Scheme the initial investors make MORE money each time someone new is added. That simply isn't the case in MLS. When you divide the Expansion fees up by the existing number of teams.....the amount of money paid out to each investor is the same each time a new investor is added. That's NOT how a pyramid scheme works.....also, the folks at the top of the Pyramid don't lose any money.... I'm sure Kraft, Anshutz, and Hunt would have something to say about the NOT losing money part.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Every successful US sport leagues goes through an expansion era. MLS in 2005 was vulnerable which is why Salt Lake got such favorable terms to enter. Each round after MLS has raised the bar of expectations in part because they want more stability. The stadiums are the bedrock the league built to avoid collapse. Even Columbus today with everything it is going through is better financial situation than what DC United has dealt with for past twenty years paying rent. I actually think MLS is maturing to the point where they can pass on several viable investors and be picky. Ten years ago a Sacramento or Cincinnati would have been chased. Now MLS is stable enough to make demands and investors are willing to pay much more than ever to get in. That tells me that even with a $500 million investment in fees, stadium, facilities, players and staff Lindner in Cincinnati still sees a path to profitability. I trust someone who has been successful in business this long not to make that investment in a pyramid scheme.
Man, sure sounds like MLS Nashville isn't happening........... https://www.tennessean.com/story/sp...ashville-mls-team-liverpool-fc-ceo/627433002/
Oh, I do not disagree that the criteria for expansion is better than it was say for example in the old NASL (or probably the revived NASL for that matter). I suppose we will see what the financial health of the league is when they get through the expansion phase when there are no more multi-million dollar expansion fees coming into the league coffers. You must forgive my skepticism. I am old enough to have seen several American soccer leagues come and go in my more than four decades of following the game.
A couple of quotes from the Tennessean: "Sales tax revenue generated by the stadium, as well as a $1.75 ticket tax that would increase over time, is designed to cover the remaining $4 million. Metro would be on the hook to pay the difference if projections fall short. Metro would cover the gap for years from five through 10 of the stadium up to $3 million." "Barry's Chief Operating Officer Rich Riebeling said the administration expects a shortfall of around $1.5 million over the first five years of the stadium's operations — dollars that Metro would be required to cover. But he said that gap is expected to close by the sixth year. He said the risk absorbed by Metro is the best the city could do during negotiations." So here is a simple statement to go along with your simple question. The MLS team is not buying its own tract of land and building a stadium with its own cash on hand. They are essentially borrowing the money from Metro. There is risk to Metro. Now having said that, is this better than other stadium financing deals? Probably. But let's not pretend that this is risk-free for Nashville taxpayers.
Lets also not pretend this is a publicly funded stadium like you previously stated. That is incorrect/false.
Great. So years from now when it is reported that Metro had to make up some sort of shortfall we can discuss who is "funding" that. I'm gonna guess it will be the "public". If we are being honest, until the club finishes their thirty year repayment, that debt belongs to Metro. Therefore, the public is indeed funding the project. The only difference is that the club will be paying the city back $295M over a long time. Like I said (multiple times), it is a better deal than most, but if you want to pretend there is no public money in there, then enjoy yourself. And all I said on the matter is that I can understand a candidate's opposition to public funding. I am actually okay with this arrangement considering what so many other stadium deals end up being. I realize I'm being a Polyanna, but wouldn't it be great if millionaire and billionaire owners could build and finance (on their own without borrowing against a city's credit) their own stadia and arenas? If they are such a great deal, there's no reason they shouldn't. Now this discussion has grown tiresome. I am done.
Publicly funded usually refers to something that is paid for by tax money and owned by a municipality. So saying it is publicly funded is intentionally misleading. The politicans know this and are intentionally trying to get citizens to oppose it by spreading false terms.
FC Cincy owner is shelling out 250-300 million to build their stadium in Cincy. if you make them, they'll pay for it.
I'll throw another question out there, non-financing related. Does anyone else think that a 25K-30K capacity stadium is too big? Granted nothing is finalized and plans change, but that's larger than most in MLS. For an untested market that seems ambitious. Now if they intend use for other events that might draw larger crowds (concerts, USMNT matches, etc.) then that's fine. But I would hate to see a solid crowd of say 20K (the league mean) to 22K (the league average) and have there be thousands of empty seats.
well looks like Nashville's mini crisis has been averted. Full speed ahead. https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...questions-settled-david-briley-win/644705002/