Voters could bring the MLS to St. Louis April 4th

[brianstl]

19 minutes ago, Pistol said:

St. Louis, I love you, but you're bringing me down.

This would have failed in the county by a larger margin.  

[cgeldmacher]

Not if they would have tied it to Proposition P.  The City tied the measure to other matters.  "Help County officers and bring a soccer team to St. Louis."  I bet that would have passed.

[Pistol]

11 minutes ago, brianstl said:

This would have failed in the county by a larger margin.  

I was referring to Bonwich's post, not the MLS thing.

[brianstl]

3 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Not if they would have tied it to Proposition P.  The City tied the measure to other matters.  "Help County officers and bring a soccer team to St. Louis."  I bet that would have passed.

There is a reason the owners always put these things in front of City voters and that is because they are the voters they have the best chance of getting the measured passed with.  If they thought placing this stadium in the county would mean they could get county voters to approve it they would have done that.

[slufanskip]

40 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Actually, this is not correct, the vast majority of the jurisdictions involved in the region had already decided not to support the soccer stadium or bring the issue to a vote. The people that were in charge of voting for or against the measure were the 250,000 or so registered voters within the city of St. Louis. Of these only 58,000 actually voted, actually the remaining non voting voters basically registered a "who cares" vote on the issue. 

Is St. Louis City ruled by financially suicidal wishes?, it appears that way to the majority of the population in the metro area. Why go into St. Louis city proper? Well the Chaifetz is there and so is IKEA... Rejoice, there are still a couple of reasons to go into the city.

If it wasn't brought to a vote anywhere else. it is correct that 58k decided the fate of the soccer stadium in a metro area with 2.8 mil people.

[Box and Won]

1 hour ago, SShoe said:

Funny, but I don't think GloryDays is too far off the mark here.  Not saying it'll happen that quick, but I don't think this is the last we hear of MLS in St. Louis.

It seems hard to believe they wouldn't have some sort of contingency plan in place, given the difficulty of winning voter approval.

[Box and Won]

45 minutes ago, AnkielBreakers said:

It is funny how, for the past two or three months, everyone in the city has completely forgotten that this is a dying town which needs a homerun miracle to spur growth.  I thought this could be one of those miracles.

That's part of the problem though - for years, we've thrown money at silver bullet "home run" projects that haven't turned things around.

Singles and doubles can and do go a long way here. 

[SShoe]

51 minutes ago, AnkielBreakers said:

It is not just that, the MLS is probably jumping for joy about the vote.  Now they can put a franchise in a growing or big city, like Nashville or Miami.  It is the crazy history of St. Louis soccer that brought us this opportunity.  

I think this is dead.  And not for a few years, but for thirty or forty years.  I don't care about watching MLS.  I thought this could be beneficial for St. Louis.  I won't lose any sleep over losing a soccer team. It is funny how, for the past two or three months, everyone in the city has completely forgotten that this is a dying town which needs a homerun miracle to spur growth.  I thought this could be one of those miracles.

I wanted the stadium project to pass, but this is why I cringed every time a supporter tried to sell the stadium deal.  Why does anybody in their right mind think a soccer stadium, or really any sports facility, would change the fate of this region's economy? We really need to get away from talking about economic development in terms of silver-bullet projects. There are a lot of things that St. Louis can and should do that would drive real growth and very few of them involve shovels. 

[Glorydays2013]

4 minutes ago, SShoe said:

I wanted the stadium project to pass, but this is why I cringed every time a supporter tried to sell the stadium deal.  Why does anybody in their right mind think a soccer stadium, or really any sports facility, would change the fate of this region's economy? We really need to get away from talking about economic development in terms of silver-bullet projects. There are a lot of things that St. Louis can and should do that would drive real growth and very few of them involve shovels. 

I think the placement of Edward Jones wasn't very appealing. Pretty much hidden from the richer areas of stl (not north or east side). No place to tailgate beforehand with massive traffic and parking was a pain. Can see why people weren't going. No wonder it was the worst attended in the NFL. 

[SShoe]

3 minutes ago, Glorydays2013 said:

I think the placement of Edward Jones wasn't very appealing. Pretty much hidden from the richer areas of stl (not north or east side). No place to tailgate beforehand with massive traffic and parking was a pain. Can see why people weren't going. No wonder it was the worst attended in the NFL. 

Not sure we were the worst attended, but I'd say that had more to do with the product on the field than anything else.

[For-DaLove]

33 minutes ago, brianstl said:

There is a reason the owners always put these things in front of City voters and that is because they are the voters they have the best chance of getting the measured passed with.  If they thought placing this stadium in the county would mean they could get county voters to approve it they would have done that.

Sorry, but that last bit is false. MLS is specifically looking for "downtown" venues.

[Slu let the dogs out?]

13 minutes ago, Glorydays2013 said:

I think the placement of Edward Jones wasn't very appealing. Pretty much hidden from the richer areas of stl (not north or east side). No place to tailgate beforehand with massive traffic and parking was a pain. Can see why people weren't going. No wonder it was the worst attended in the NFL. 

Call me crazy but I think attendance issues may have had something to do with one or more of the following:

 

1. Zero winning seasons in over a decade, including the worst 5 year stretch in NFL history. You ready to have your mind blown? Since the Rams last made the playoffs, every single team in the NFC has made the playoffs TWICE. Yes....TWICE. Every single NFC team (I didn't believe it at first and looked it up - TRUE).

2. Not just losing but losing badly. Being outscored in 10 seasons by over 1,000 points!

3. An owner and front office that wanted nothing to do with the community. Zero outreach.

4. The last 3 years, the ongoing threat of the team picking up and leaving for LA.

 

The Dome was the place to be from 99-04. Geography had very little to do with it.

[Glorydays2013]

3 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Call me crazy but I think attendance issues may have had something to do with one or more of the following:

 

1. Zero winning seasons in over a decade, including the worst 5 year stretch in NFL history

2. Not just losing but losing badly. Being outscored in 10 seasons by over 1,000 points!

3. An owner and front office that wanted nothing to do with the community. Zero outreach.

4. The last 3 years, the ongoing threat of the team picking up and leaving for LA.

 

The Dome was the place to be from 99-04. Geography had very little to do with it.

See the Cleveland browns. 

Also 

[Glorydays2013]

That was for 2015. 2014 was up only 2 or 3 spots if I remember 

[Slu let the dogs out?]

Just now, Glorydays2013 said:

See the Cleveland browns. 

Also 

Okay. I don't get it...

[billikenfan05]

1 minute ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Okay. I don't get it...

Dude don't even try. It's impossible.

[Glorydays2013]

Just now, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Okay. I don't get it...

Sshoe said we wasn't sure it was the least attended. It was. Yes for a lot of reasons but the browns were the worst team with 1 win and still had 10k more fans on average this year. Winning is part of it but also is people going to have a good time to pull them away from the tv 

[Glorydays2013]

1 minute ago, billikenfan05 said:

Dude don't even try. It's impossible.

Pretty easy when you read what I said. 

[billikenfan05]

2 minutes ago, Glorydays2013 said:

Pretty easy when you read what I said. 

Your writing is incoherent. 

[Slu let the dogs out?]

Just now, Glorydays2013 said:

Sshoe said we wasn't sure it was the least attended. It was. Yes for a lot of reasons but the browns were the worst team with 1 win and still had 10k more fans on average this year. Winning is part of it but also is people going to have a good time to pull them away from the tv 

I'm not Sshoe and I never said the Rams weren't last in attendance. As I said, there were several reasons why attendance at Rams games was low, however, location of the Dome was not one of them.

By the way, you do know that the NFL measures "attendance" by tickets sold and not butts in the seats, right?

[SShoe]

5 minutes ago, Glorydays2013 said:

Sshoe said we wasn't sure it was the least attended. It was. Yes for a lot of reasons but the browns were the worst team with 1 win and still had 10k more fans on average this year. Winning is part of it but also is people going to have a good time to pull them away from the tv 

Final lame-duck year, sure.  What about the previous 10 years? Regardless, the building and positioning is not WHY we were last in attendance

[Glorydays2013]

5 minutes ago, SShoe said:

Final lame-duck year, sure.  What about the previous 10 years? Regardless, the building and positioning is not WHY we were last in attendance

You're right it wasn't the only reason of course, but this is all talking about you saying it wouldn't help the economy which is false. Like I said earlier MLS would draw far more tourists than Chicago and KC on game days for rivals. 

[brianstl]

Just now, For-DaLove said:

Sorry, but that last bit is false. MLS is specifically looking for "downtown" venues.

Yeah, except for all the recent additions to the league that don't play downtown.  You have Portland, Minnesota's new stadium isn't being built in Downtown St. Paul or Downtown Minneapolis, Orlando doesn't have a traditional downtown, Philadelphia is actually located in Chester, NY City's new stadium will be built in Concourse Park (a residential neighborhood), LA FC's new Stadium is being built in Exposition Park and none of the proposed Miami sites have been downtown.

 

[Pistol]

26 minutes ago, For-DaLove said:

Sorry, but that last bit is false. MLS is specifically looking for "downtown" venues.

This is a big impediment to getting a stadium built anywhere else in the region.

Cincinnati's USL team plays in Nippert Stadium on UC's campus, where the Bearcats football team plays. It seats about 40,000 and they usually fill it with about half that amount on weekends, sometimes more. This fan base was pretty unexpected, but the team plays in a densely populated neighborhood surrounding Ohio's second-largest university. Like SLU, it's just a couple miles outside of downtown, it's along several major bus routes, and has thousands and thousands of 20-somethings (and me!) within walking distance. There's a separate end-zone seating area that the hooligans have claimed as their own. The soccer team's owners have paid to renovate Nippert in a way that makes it compliant with MLS and FIFA standards, to the tune of a few million bucks. This USL franchise has been a success beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

And in spite of all of these factors that make it the PERFECT venue for an MLS team, MLS has indicated that it still wants a downtown soccer-specific stadium for the team. In a small downtown that already has two stadiums, it's a real estate conundrum and a huge potential waste of money, private and/or public.

So good luck getting anything built outside of downtown STL, let alone out in the far suburbs or exurbs.

[SShoe]

18 minutes ago, Glorydays2013 said:

You're right it wasn't the only reason of course, but this is all talking about you saying it wouldn't help the economy which is false. Like I said earlier MLS would draw far more tourists than Chicago and KC on game days for rivals. 

Not sure why I'm even responding, but I never even came close to saying that a stadium would not help the economy.  I just said, it wouldn't change its fate.  

Do some quick math - avg league attendance is roughly 20K. There are 17 home games, resulting in 340,000 tickets sold.   Let's aggressively assume 10% of those are from out-of towners, or 34,000 fans who may spend an average of $500 per visit in STL (pulled that # out of my educated butt).  That results in roughly $17m of "new" tourism dollars circulating within the local economy.  Pretty good except that the St. Louis regional economy has a GDP of about $146 Billion. This indicates the soccer stadium would provide a 0.012% boost to the regional economy based on your increased tourism argument.  It's a homerun!