- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MLS to StL is all but dead for now
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:56 pm to mizslu314
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:56 pm to mizslu314
I know nothing about this issue. Why did this get put to a city only vote as opposed to a county one? Does the county not have any say so as far as taxes that were funding the stadium? If so, why wasn't it expanded to them based on what y'all are saying as far as county support? Was this set up to fail?
2
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:57 pm to SeeeeK
what
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:57 pm to SeeeeK
And if people remember, i was not PRO MLS. I wasn't sure it will be a huge dealio in 10 years, and if they are losing. A lot of the yuppies who would horde tickets are very fickle here.
But this was a sweetheart deal to renovate a blighted area. But hey, why renovate those areas, there are so many already, because of our ghetto dwellers, that we should just add more.
But this was a sweetheart deal to renovate a blighted area. But hey, why renovate those areas, there are so many already, because of our ghetto dwellers, that we should just add more.
This post was edited on 4/5/17 at 12:02 am
Posted on 4/5/17 at 12:01 am to SeeeeK
Okietiger
St.Louis City and County are 2 separate dealios. We in County do pay for Zoo,Art Museum, etc. Which i am 100% for. Those sites are free because of it.
County doesn't pay money unless it's begged and has it's hands tied. Especially since all of that tax $ and game day revenue will be kept in City of St.Louis and State. I love how County plays hardball with handing cash over to others. And Stenger is doing a hell of a job.
I've hear it's getting done regardless, we shall see. Owners will fork over cash and ask for tax breaks
St.Louis City and County are 2 separate dealios. We in County do pay for Zoo,Art Museum, etc. Which i am 100% for. Those sites are free because of it.
County doesn't pay money unless it's begged and has it's hands tied. Especially since all of that tax $ and game day revenue will be kept in City of St.Louis and State. I love how County plays hardball with handing cash over to others. And Stenger is doing a hell of a job.
I've hear it's getting done regardless, we shall see. Owners will fork over cash and ask for tax breaks
This post was edited on 4/5/17 at 12:15 am
Posted on 4/5/17 at 12:03 am to okietiger13
quote:
I know nothing about this issue. Why did this get put to a city only vote as opposed to a county one? Does the county not have any say so as far as taxes that were funding the stadium? If so, why wasn't it expanded to them based on what y'all are saying as far as county support? Was this set up to fail?
St. Louis, if I remember correctly, is an independent city, which means that the county and city are two distinct entities which share no overlaps.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 12:06 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
St. Louis, if I remember correctly, is an independent city, which means that the county and city are two distinct entities which share no overlaps.
yes, only 2 big cities in the country are not part of a county, and st.louis is one.
which is why St.Louis crime states are inflated in the per capita. Everyone else has the whole county that city resides in. If you put St.LOuis City and County back together, St.Louis becomes 9th largest city in country and they drop into the 20's, possibly 30's in crime per capita.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 12:14 am to okietiger13
Chicago. The MlS used Chicago as an example(or a threat) of why a stadium in the suburbs does not work. The suburbs unlike chicago, hell unlike and other city views soccer the way St Louis County does.
the MLS stated to stl they wanted a stadium located in the downtown (stating chicago ruined this for everyone).
100% set to fail thats why were so frickign angry about a 5th league USA sport not passing
the MLS stated to stl they wanted a stadium located in the downtown (stating chicago ruined this for everyone).
100% set to fail thats why were so frickign angry about a 5th league USA sport not passing
Posted on 4/5/17 at 6:03 am to arkyhawk
MLS statement reads like a eulogy.
Biggest winner in this is probably Cincinnati or San Antonio. I think Sacramento and San Diego are shoo ins for #25 and #26.
quote:
"For many years we have believed that St. Louis would be a tremendous market for a Major League Soccer team, but the lack of a positive stadium vote is clearly a significant setback for the city’s expansion opportunity and a loss for the community. "We deeply appreciate the efforts of Paul Edgerley, Jim Kavanaugh and their partners to bring Major League Soccer to St. Louis."
Biggest winner in this is probably Cincinnati or San Antonio. I think Sacramento and San Diego are shoo ins for #25 and #26.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 6:28 am to SeeeeK
You've said "dealio" too many times for one thread.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 6:54 am to arkyhawk
Clubs need to pay for their own stadiums
Posted on 4/5/17 at 6:56 am to LuckyTiger
Sacramento for sure. In fact I think that if they don't get in this next round it will never happen. They could feasibly field an MLS team in 2018. They are ready to go. But I do think that Garber wants San Diego badly now.
Cincinnati seems to make a lot sense too, given their support. If I had to predict who it's going to be for the next two slots I would say Cincinnati, and Sacramento.
Later on down the road, assuming Miami doesn't happen, that leaves three slots open, and I think one of them goes to Detroit. For the other two, we'll have to see what happens in Carolina, Nashville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, and Tampa as far as stadium funding goes.
EDIT: I also don't believe it's over for St Louis. I think they have plenty of time to get their shite together privately.
Cincinnati seems to make a lot sense too, given their support. If I had to predict who it's going to be for the next two slots I would say Cincinnati, and Sacramento.
Later on down the road, assuming Miami doesn't happen, that leaves three slots open, and I think one of them goes to Detroit. For the other two, we'll have to see what happens in Carolina, Nashville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, and Tampa as far as stadium funding goes.
EDIT: I also don't believe it's over for St Louis. I think they have plenty of time to get their shite together privately.
This post was edited on 4/5/17 at 6:57 am
Posted on 4/5/17 at 8:55 am to StraightCashHomey21
The stl club was going to pay for 70%, which I think is a fair about to ask the public for help.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 9:29 am to mizslu314
I'm sick of owners taking public money
What happened in SD with the Chargers was the last straw
What happened in SD with the Chargers was the last straw
Posted on 4/5/17 at 9:33 am to StraightCashHomey21
The city is losing people by the day. its decreased by 500k in the last 45 years. it would use little public money (only 60m) and its really one of the last chances of keeping people from moving to the county.
Its also bs the MLS wont allow the stadium in the county. The county is where a majority of the population live, it would pass with no problem. Thanks Chicago.
Its also bs the MLS wont allow the stadium in the county. The county is where a majority of the population live, it would pass with no problem. Thanks Chicago.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 9:47 am to mizslu314
It actually in terms of public money was one of the best deals any city will ever get.
the owners were going to give the city the stadium, with no responsibility to keep it maintained, all would be done by owners, and they would put 5 million into community annually for programs(money for the shitheads who bring nothing to the city). And City would own the Team in Title, so no moving in 10 years, nothing.
I was neither for or against, but watching the shitheads in the city dance and literally throw a parade for it losing is getting me quite tilted.
the owners were going to give the city the stadium, with no responsibility to keep it maintained, all would be done by owners, and they would put 5 million into community annually for programs(money for the shitheads who bring nothing to the city). And City would own the Team in Title, so no moving in 10 years, nothing.
I was neither for or against, but watching the shitheads in the city dance and literally throw a parade for it losing is getting me quite tilted.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 9:51 am to SeeeeK
quote:
for it losing is getting me quite tilted.
*melted
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News