News: Expansion: St. Louis Stadium Funding Dead After Vote Fails

If you have to rely on the goodwill of voters for a "stadium plan", you don't really have a stadium plan, and the chances of you actually getting a team are slim. Case in point: remember Cleveland? They were outright given a team, contingent on getting a stadium done. After a few attempts in downtown Cleveland fell through, the last chance was a stadium in neighboring Summit County, but that required a vote. The vote failed miserably, of course, and Cleveland has no team.

IMHO, MLS shouldn't even consider applications from groups whose stadium "plan" requires the people to vote to give them lots of tax dollars or tax breaks. It's just a waste of time.

------RM

 

I like it. I have those two cities in my list of getting in. However, I think TB and SA are the next two in.

 

The idea that Phoenix is the future seems odd considering that the future supposedly involves global warming, and Phoenix is already hot enough. Same goes for Miami, which climate change is supposed to put under water.

A long-term bet on Midwestern cities with reasonable housing markets, pedestrian-friendly environments, old-world charm, and real community spirit seems like a good one to me.

 

Yeah, silly to put any more teams in California since The Big One will dump the whole state in the ocean in a few years.

 

The largest earthquakes in US history were close to St. Louis, not in California.

"New Madrid earthquakes were the biggest earthquakes in American history. They occurred in the central Mississippi Valley, but were felt as far away as New York City, Boston, Montreal, and Washington D.C. . . .

"In the known history of the world, no other earthquakes have lasted so long or produced so much evidence of damage as the New Madrid earthquakes. Three of the earthquakes are on the list of America’s top earthquakes: the first one on December 16, 1811, a magnitude of 8.1 on the Richter scale; the second on January 23, 1812, at 7.8; and the third on February 7, 1812, at as much as 8.8 magnitude."

http://www.new-madrid.mo.us/index.aspx?nid=132

 

Please stop all this negative talk about e-quakes. It is a cherished nickname of an MLS team.

 

Maybe the Foundry group can save the day or come up with an alternate bid

 

@okcomputer how in the heck is a ticket tax a giveaway to the owner???? The fan pays the same amount of money and the taxpayers pay nothing. It almost certainly seems more likely that it's a way to reduce revenue on paper in order to help bargaining with the players, and possibly a way for the club to avoid paying property tax on the stadium. The latter, by the way, is incredibly routine...I'd be pretty surprised if less than 90% of pro teams in the US didn't pay property tax on the places they play.

 

So Cincinnati doesn't get a team because a team over 100 miles away has crappy attendance, dumb reason.

I don't understand why people keep insisting that Cali cant have 5 teams, from Sacramento to San Diego is 500+ miles w/ 36mil people. Boston to DC is just under 400 miles with 5 teams and 11mil more people at 47mil.

 

Look at the numbers you provided: California has less than 7.2 million per 100 miles, while the north Atlantic seaboard has more than 11.75 million per 100 miles. In other words, the latter has more than 50% more people per 100 miles. Meanwhile, 4 California teams for 36 million people (1 per 9 million) compares favorably to 5 North Atlantic for 47 million (1 per 9.4 million). You're not providing a good argument for 5 California teams. I'm just using the numbers you provided (without checking their veracity).

In my opinion, with so many markets seeking an expansion team, and MLS's stated objective of geographical desirability, I don't see California getting 2 more in the next 4/5, especially given LAFC is #23. I do see them getting one of the expansion slots, just not two. It's either Sacramento or San Diego, not both Sacramento and San Diego. And sorry Phoenix, if a California team gets one of the slots, I don't see Phoenix getting one.

 

If California secedes, will they have their own D1 league?

Sort of like the SPL, only better.

 

Can Cascadia join the C-League?

 

As if on cue:

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2017/04/05/poll-nearly-half-of-millennials-consider-leaving-bay-area/

 

after the rams blowback and the feeling in st.louis about the tax money they spent why the hell did they think it was a good idea to ask for a taxpayer funded stadium?

 

Tampa voters passed theirs, yes?

 

So I went softer on this one because they have been used to hide a giveaway in the past. Sometimes the payback is a wink-wink one, where all the parties know the numbers don't really add up, and don't care. Other times, the principal is paid back, but not the interest, which is still a subsidy.

There are examples where a loan is a complete non-subsidy, though. This was the case with FedExField, where a separate Stadium Authority was created for bonding that had no obvious revenues besides those generated by the stadium itself, which were enough to pay back the bonds in a quasi-private transaction. Another case is Providence Park, where the owner asked for public finance of the $31 million renovation, to be paid back out of the tickets--and then MLS vastly outperformed all of the published expectations, paid off the 2010 renovation, the more ill-advised minor-league baseball-centric renovation the stadium had done in 2001, and is probably slightly into the terrain of subsidizing the bonds on the basketball arena.

To be fair, it is also usually to wind up paying below-market interest at the least.

In the case of St Louis, just back of the envelope, I think the 2.5% tax could have paid off the principal on the $60 million in about 20 years. If that's all it did, and the arrangement ended there, the implied subsidy in PV terms is about half of the figure in the headlines. If you make more optimistic assumptions, like above-average attendance or the team paying the tax for 30-40 years, it goes lower than that.

 

Tampa's vote is next month.

 

Ah, must have been the last legistlative hurdle, then. Still, isn't the Tampa upgrades all privately funded? I don't undestand what they are voting on? Allowing a zoning variance for the construction or something?

 

I believe it's a city-owned building. They need permission to expand and get a new lease.

 

Article from St. Louis Post-Dispatch with precinct data:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_7be2fcd4-52f9-5291-b05a-74bbbc330e04.html

 

Correct. Specifically the referendum is just to give them the ability to renegotiate the lease in order to allow the expansion. It doesn't guarantee that a new lease gets done (though it's pretty clear they have the support of city hall so it'd be pretty much a done deal if it passes).

And yes the proposed $80 million expansion is entirely privately funded.

Mail ballots have already started to be cast but the date of the election is May 2nd.

 

Bring MLS to St. Louis. Show that there are people all over the St. Louis area that are willing to give their hard earned money to support this great opportunity.

https://www.gofundme.com/nx34sr-mls2stl

In the event this loses traction and the donations start to decline off we will then discuss what to do with the money raised. If we receive no input on what to do with the money raised, the donations will then be automatically refunded to the original donors.

Thank you for your support. #MLS2STL

 

Great idea. I'm in.

 

Funny... The NFL said the same thing

 

With the NFL, it's an obviousness. The St Louis market is both small and weak on football (there are few, if any, cities in the US where the football/baseball popularity ratio comes out as bad for football as St Louis, for reasons dating back to the respective Cardinals teams). St Louis will probably, 10 years from now, also not really care that they don't have an NFL team, beyond a few boosters.