MLS2STL

Got love for St. Louis sports? Let's talk Pro, College, High School, or otherwise.
First unread post1210 posts
Denials all around to Plan B stadium plan as per PD article. I would have to agree that their is enough corporate support/wealth to make a MLS team happen with a stadium comparable to the average MLS stadium or at least comparable to KC without the ballot vote. Especially with NFL out of the picture and Cards drawing +40k a game. The region will pay for quality sports team.

I don't agree with St. Louis Mayor opinion of city keeping hands off. Future upgrades and stadium site location will make a big difference on additional soccer games from NCAA to Friendlies and so on. Essentially giving up on economic impact and events that fill downtown hotel rooms & eateries. Might as well as find the cheapest plot of land in the region even if it floods that is next to a freeway interchange, admit a few more freeway hotel rooms will be built that will dilute the markein and discount the regional draw of downtown (Arch grounds, City museum, Union Station, Scottrade/Peabody, BPV and hotel rooms all well connected)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 62288.html

Speculation about alternative funding for a St. Louis soccer stadium has been rampant since voters killed a public financing proposal in April, but nothing serious has materialized.

The April 4 vote on Proposition 2 left investors in a Major League Soccer expansion club short $60 million to finish their financing plan for a $155 million stadium. According to those investors, there is still no “Plan B,” which has become the nonexistent proposal’s unofficial title on social media.

“This is all silly,” SC STL investor Dave Peacock said in an email last week in response to reports on local ESPN radio that a plan was coming together.
dmelsh wrote:
Tue May 09, 2017 9:43 am
chaifetz10 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 9:35 pm
Translation: we aren't actually passionately dedicated to the long term success of a MLS team, we just want a subsidized team and stadium so don't want to actually have to pay for anything with our own money. If a city or county wants to give us a few hundred million to build a stadium, we'll show up faster than a speeding bullet.
You might look real silly if the rumors are true.
Yeah, I would. But the clock keeps ticking and only these rumors keep getting shot down. I have zero reason to change my view and opinion that they're only in it for the the money (aka massive tax subsidies) and the whole "wanting to better the city by bringing in a new major league team" is nothing more than a good talking point to rile up the current fans.
If theres no plan B then why is there so much speculation going around? Are people and media trying to get the wheels turning on a plan B. On my behalf i think its nearly crucial for St.Louis to get a MLS team. The history alone speaks for itself however the economic opportunities and advantages that could spur not only growth but show off another side of St.Louis besides Baseball and Hockey could draw people here who would never consider coming here to visit..
St.Louis needs to flex its muscles like it did in its heydays
If Detroit can consistently brand itself the comeback/renaissance city then what should St.Louis brand itself?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But I would guess that rumors keep flying because 1) it's a story that drives media traffic and clicks. 2) The soccer fans who want to see a team want to believe it to be true. and 3) there probably are some investors who truly want to see a team brought here... even if they aren't the heavy hitters.

Again, I'm not against seeing MLS come to STL. But the group behind the previous proposal has given me zero confidence that they have some super secret plan in the works and they've had a sudden change in heart regarding the subsidies they were requiring previously.
I don't know... They haven't officially said no, yet. And the group is definitely still together... and that Dave Peacock comment was too much of a coincidence for me... Who say's "This is all Silly," without knowing that is one of their fan club's mottos. There's too much money to be made here for all of them to back out, and no reason for them to release their plan B until they actually have to... I've been wrong a few times on this though, so maybe I'm wrong again.

It just feels very well... a bit silly not to do it.
MarkHaversham wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:52 am
Bring back the St. Louis Gunners!
AAFL?

And rumor has it there may be more to those Kevin Slaten rumors than just rumor.
^ So your teasing a rumor of a rumor.
^^ What are the Slaten rumors? Hadn't heard those?
dredger wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:28 pm
^ So your teasing a rumor of a rumor.
Second thought, I probably shouldn't have posted anything, not sure how much in confidence I was told. Anyway, if true, it may go public in the next 45-60 days. If not, then drag me down to the spot where y'all threw Gone Corporate into the river...
I think Shadrach means Randy Karraker, not Kevin Slaten. If true, then I would further discard if Shad can't even get the source correct.
Yeah, it was Karraker stirring the pot a while back...I can't keep those guys straight. :oops:
But that is not my source. And, unlike his report (just found it online) I wasn't told a private investor was filling the gap but other financing options are being hammered out.
Plan B is in the works
If they try to squeeze the city for tax dollars at the very last second again, I'm going to lose it. Someone at least spill the beans on where they want to build and if the next iteration relies on voting for a new tax or simply reshuffling the existing investors.
dbInSouthCity wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:10 pm
Plan B is in the works
Crossing my fingers.
I really really really hope the stadium is located where it was initially planned to be. Even if it is a redesigned "cheaper" version.
chaifetz10 wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:02 am
If they try to squeeze the city for tax dollars at the very last second again, I'm going to lose it.
i seriously doubt they'd go that route again after all of this. but, this IS St. Louis.
shadrach wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:28 pm
Yeah, it was Karraker stirring the pot a while back...I can't keep those guys straight. :oops:
But that is not my source. And, unlike his report (just found it online) I wasn't told a private investor was filling the gap but other financing options are being hammered out.
Yea that means public financing. So the question is does that mean the investors will own the stadium and want a property tax abatement on it? I would okay with that but let's be serious, it won't be just that
cardinalstl wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:37 am
I really really really hope the stadium is located where it was initially planned to be. Even if it is a redesigned "cheaper" version.
City still has the option I think on that property for a couple years so still could happen
Cusamano just said on ch. 5 that he talked to a reliable source who said the deal is dormant not dead. And the best news is that not one of the competing cities is closer to getting a team than we are. So we re still in it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the group is going to get it together, you would think they would want everything in place when they award two franchises in the fall.

I wonder what MLS does in the fall if none or only one of the groups has their plans finalized. Maybe move awarding of. Franchise to the spring of 2018?
moorlander wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:28 pm
Cusamano just said on ch. 5 that he talked to a reliable source who said the deal is dormant not dead. And the best news is that not one of the competing cities is closer to getting a team than we are. So we re still in it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To elaborate on this. He also had someone on his show this week (I think it was McDermott), that agreed with that statement. He mentioned with other cities (San Diego, Charlotte) shooting down their proposals, that it could help St. Louis get back in the picture. He mentioned the league was keeping an eye on the USL teams hosting MLS teams this past week. I think ours went pretty well so that was good. Obviously, they would be more interested atmosphere and attendance than outcome of the game.

They didn't go into detail but he said there still was a chance. I keep hoping, but it still feels like a long shot. All that said after going to that game the other night I now more than ever think downtown is the best place for the stadium. Maybe Maryland Heights could handle it, but Fenton was a disaster. Not that I really know where in Fenton they could put it anymore with the old car plant being redeveloped already.
Definitely not dead, not sure if alive but not dead.
I don't believe there isn't some way to close the financing gap that the potential owners wouldn't be okay with. Take a few bells and whistles off the stadium and take on one more small equity partner with the necessary assets. Or develop the proposed parking lots into residential or mixed use mid rises to generate more income. Something.
cardinalstl wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:58 pm
I don't believe there isn't some way to close the financing gap that the potential owners wouldn't be okay with. Take a few bells and whistles off the stadium and take on one more small equity partner with the necessary assets. Or develop the proposed parking lots into residential or mixed use mid rises to generate more income. Something.
Agree, However, I see the possibility of a privately financed stadium happening in a different location with desired real estate/property already under one owners group or developer and at a minimum next to freeway ramp. In other words, remove some of the real estate complexity, site work required and groups involved out of the equation. The west downtown site truly does need a significant involvement from the city, real estate deals and site cost to make happen.

Fenton old Chrysler site seems real possibility if a deal can be made with the developer & city

The other thought, would a MLS stadium fit into bottle district site? It is pretty much cleared, at least under one ownership group if not mistaken and falls within McKee's northside tax incentives package. Believe bottework ownership group includes Clayco which in itself could has built a few stadiums and is actively involved in city development. Still be in the city and urban environment with decent access. Finally, believe bottelwork site was being woven into the Rams north riverfront development plan for parking at one point. Put MLS stadium on bottlework site and flip the parking and future development to the other side.

While I'm at it, going big and suggest a MLS bottle work stadium should be a bigger north riverfront development vision based on demo of the raised section of I55 for a future at grade blvd extending from Washington Ave to I-70/MRB
Isn't the MLS requiring the stadium to be built in an urban core? The Bottle District site would be nice as well.