MLS in Charlotte - 2021

[SgtCampsalot]

1 hour ago, JBS said:

^^

As a small "l" reformed libertarian, I'm ashamed of myself for how much I want the city and county to use tax dollars to subsidize a billionaires vanity project...but I can't help myself.

Hah! That's how I feel about every sports subsidy ever. This one feels a bit different because... I guess because the land use is already a sports stadium? Also, idk, it'll round out our pro sports landscape (other than the 'Canes for Hockey, but that's also not a southern-friendly sport, per se, what with climate) 

Edited January 19, 2017 by SgtCampsalot

[urbanlover568]

Id love to see the Smith's family justification of a SOCCER stadium in CHARLOTTE.  It's a wast of taxpayer money IMO. What time will we get with HB2 anyways? 

[asthasr]

It makes no sense to spend $90 million of taxpayer funds to build a stadium to subsidize a fringe sport when we have to penny pinch and beg to build functional infrastructure for the actual people who actually live here.

[kermit]

Other than being a CharMeck taxpayer I don't have a dog in this fight but.... I have no problem with the city using tourism tax money on the stadium, it seems as good a use for that money as any (remember this money can only be used on things that benefit the hospitality industry). I also don't have a problem with the county providing the land (what else is it going to get used for?). But the county cash contribution irks me given the degree of control that the Smiths will have over the facility and its revenue.

I would be much happier if:

• the Smith's payed rent to the county
• the contract specified that any future upgrades to the stadium were the responsibility of the team owners (I do understand this is unrealistic in the current pro-spots climate)

[SouthEndCLT811]

28 minutes ago, kermit said:

Other than being a CharMeck taxpayer I don't have a dog in this fight but.... I have no problem with the city using tourism tax money on the stadium, it seems as good a use for that money as any (remember this money can only be used on things that benefit the hospitality industry). I also don't have a problem with the county providing the land (what else is it going to get used for?). But the county cash contribution irks me given the degree of control that the Smiths will have over the facility and its revenue.

I would be much happier if:

• the Smith's payed rent to the county
• the contract specified that any future upgrades to the stadium were the responsibility of the team owners (I do understand this is unrealistic in the current pro-spots climate)

This has so much going on in it that I can see everyone's side when it comes to being against any public funding and the Smith's desire for it.  I agree the city share that is in the tourism tax this type of thing is what it's their for.  The argument could be made using the funds for this or the convention center.  But I'm not sure if it's a situation where the projects are dueling for funds or if both could be supported.

I definitely don't like the county side of the deal even as someone who would probably have season tickets.  At the same time do I think the county should totally skate by without some skin in the game for mostly private funds improving their land?  No.  It's the $50M, now $43.75M number that's just too much.  If the city did $50, county $20 and the Smith's the other $100-120 that would probably be my comfort level with the taxpayer obligation.

Lost in all of this is the $150M expansion fee the Smith's would have to pay, building an academy and training ground which is another $75M and then the balance of the stadium renovations which current proposal stands at $90M.  Before a single game is played the Smith's are offering to pay $315M for the team infrastructure.  Not including staff and players.  

Edited January 20, 2017 by SouthEndCLT811

[kermit]

21 minutes ago, SouthEndCLT811 said:

Lost in all of this is the $150M expansion fee the Smith's would have to pay, setting up an academy for the club and building that out which is another $75M and then the balance of the stadium renovations which current proposal stands at $90M.  Before a single game is played the Smith's are offering to pay $315M for the team infrastructure.  Not including staff and players.  

I wouldn't say that money is missing from this discussion, the Smiths have volunteered to risk that money in an asset with the hope of generating a positive ROI -- it ain't a gift or a donation to the community. The issue (for me) is they are asking the city and county to subsidize their investment without sharing in the possible upside and that certainly merits some discussion. I would be thrilled if the Smith's recognized this taxpayer subsidy of their private investment by offering to pay a % of their gross to the county (but I am not quite that naive).

The big risk I see here is that the MLS is a league that is clearly willing to move into mid-sized, less established cities as well as have more than one team in large markets. This means that there will be lots of opportunities for owner extortion in the future (e.g. Marcus telling Charlotte "give me $100 million for renovations to memorial or I will move the team to Norcross.")

Edited January 20, 2017 by kermit

[SouthEndCLT811]

I see what you are saying, it's hard to see how that would work as moving a team is unprecedented in the MLS.  I'm not sure how the single entity aspect of the league plays into that (owners are shareholders/operators of their club within the MLS LLC versus the traditional franchise owner in NFL/MLB/NBA).  Have they dissolved under-performing organizations?  Yes.  Have they moved them?  Not yet.

Edited January 20, 2017 by SouthEndCLT811

[kermit]

^ thanks, I didn't realize that about MLS

[SouthEndCLT811]

Terms are now posted on the county site.  Addressing relocation, 25 year agreement with 5 year options after.  Major renovations undertaken by the county (dislike) evaluated after the 11th year of the agreement and executed by the 21st year.  CRVA has 6 free days, county 14 free days.

http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/news/Pages/MLS.aspx

Also kermit - I looked it up after but I misspoke over a club being relocated.  When a viable stadium option wasn't found, the San Jose franchise was relocated to Houston in 2005, with a guarantee of a club being back in San Jose by 2008.

[jtmonk]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

I wouldn't say that money is missing from this discussion, the Smiths have volunteered to risk that money in an asset with the hope of generating a positive ROI -- it ain't a gift or a donation to the community. The issue (for me) is they are asking the city and county to subsidize their investment without sharing in the possible upside and that certainly merits some discussion. I would be thrilled if the Smith's recognized this taxpayer subsidy of their private investment by offering to pay a % of their gross to the county (but I am not quite that naive).

The big risk I see here is that the MLS is a league that is clearly willing to move into mid-sized, less established cities as well as have more than one team in large markets. This means that there will be lots of opportunities for owner extortion in the future (e.g. Marcus telling Charlotte "give me $100 million for renovations to memorial or I will move the team to Norcross.")

The City and County are taking the same risk by donating the land and money for the team with the same hopes of a positive return on investment.  The City and County's ROI comes from increase tourism from having a team and the hopes of increasing private investment/development around the stadium, therefore increasing the tax base.  Now whether or not this gamble will pay off, we'll just have to wait and see. That being said, I do understand your concerns about future renovations, etc., and don't like the terms and conditions that have been put forth, I do think there should be some more discussion there.

[kermit]

^ yea, I can see that. But the nature of leverage makes the Smith's returns wildly disproportionate to CharMeck returns.

[atlrvr]

The city/county also doen't get the same downside risk.  Bob Johnson lost $100mm+ on the Bobcats, while the city was in for a fixed cost, and still received the same expected returns attributable to being a city that has an NBA team, hosting the DNC, concerts, the Epicentre and Center City Green property taxes, and uplift in food/beverage taxes.

I would be far more upset if the city/county had equity participation in an MLS team, because at $150mm franchise fee plus salares, etc, it's going to be really tough to get a positive return in a mid-sized market. 

The investment should be measured in:

Does this stimulate increased tax revenue?

Does this make Charlotte for attractive for corp relocations?

Does this make Charlotte more attractive for millenials/entrepreneurs?

Will this result in Charlotte getting additional free media exposure?

I don't know if this MLS team is a great monetary return for the city/county, but I think it would score well on each of those questions, and probably generate a better return than some other alternatives.  Of course is that expected return is negative, then they shouldn't participate.

[Windsurfer]

Forgive me if this has been asked already, but, why can't Bank of America stadium be dual purposed?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Windsurfer said:

Forgive me if this has been asked already, but, why can't Bank of America stadium be dual purposed?

its yuge

[SouthEndCLT811]

2 minutes ago, Windsurfer said:

Forgive me if this has been asked already, but, why can't Bank of America stadium be dual purposed?

Posted about 3 weeks ago it got buried a few pages back.  Long story short 70K stadiums unless you're Chelsea, Man U, Man City, Bayern Munich, Aresnal those blue bloods in the sport then it creates a poor environment.  MLS also likes being the primary tenant.  Atlanta is an exception in recent expansion because their new staidum was created to alter seating to create a closer to the pitch experience for fans and then move it back for Falcon games.  They also have 30k season ticket holders last I saw.

A friend posted a blog entry that shared a snippet of the quotes about stadium locale from the MLS commissioner.

Garber, 2014, Atlanta
The formula for us is a downtown environment, particularly in Atlanta, where most people don’t realize how many young people in the millennium category now live in this city and can walk to the stadium. They can walk to the stadium and create an environment that we didn’t have 5-10 years ago in the league.

Garber, 2014, Miami
MLS won’t go to Miami without downtown stadium

Garber, 2014, MLS State of the League Address
The downtown formula has been working for us and it's hard to imagine that we would go into a market where we don't have that scenario

St Louis Investor, 2016, St Louis
It is our understanding that Major League Soccer prefers its teams to play in downtown venues.

Garber, 2016, Cincinnati
If we could wave a magic wand, we would love to have soccer stadiums downtown in every market. That's not always the situation for us.

Garber, 2016, Sacramento
Garber believes Sacramento Republic FC will play in MLS by 2020
Working with Sacramento city officials, the team is poised to build a 25,000-seat, $226 million privately financed MLS stadium at the northeast corner of the downtown railyard once the league awards a franchise.

Edited January 20, 2017 by SouthEndCLT811

[Guest]

Just now, SouthEndCLT811 said:

Posted about 3 weeks ago it got buried a few pages back.  Long story short 70K stadiums unless you're Chelsea, Man U, Man City, Bayern Munich, Aresnal those blue bloods in the sport then it creates a poor environment.  MLS also likes being the primary tenant.

A friend posted a blog entry that shared a snippet of the quotes about stadium locale from the MLS commissioner.

Garber, 2014, Atlanta
The formula for us is a downtown environment, particularly in Atlanta, where most people don’t realize how many young people in the millennium category now live in this city and can walk to the stadium. They can walk to the stadium and create an environment that we didn’t have 5-10 years ago in the league.

Garber, 2014, Miami
MLS won’t go to Miami without downtown stadium

Garber, 2014, MLS State of the League Address
The downtown formula has been working for us and it's hard to imagine that we would go into a market where we don't have that scenario

St Louis Investor, 2016, St Louis
It is our understanding that Major League Soccer prefers its teams to play in downtown venues.

Garber, 2016, Cincinnati
If we could wave a magic wand, we would love to have soccer stadiums downtown in every market. That's not always the situation for us.

Garber, 2016, Sacramento
Garber believes Sacramento Republic FC will play in MLS by 2020
Working with Sacramento city officials, the team is poised to build a 25,000-seat, $226 million privately financed MLS stadium at the northeast corner of the downtown railyard once the league awards a franchise.

LOL, this is by one of our wonderful posters. He posted it a few pages back.

[archiham04]

41 minutes ago, atlrvr said:

I don't know if this MLS team is a great monetary return for the city/county, but I think it would score well on each of those questions, and probably generate a better return than some other alternatives.  Of course is that expected return is negative, then they shouldn't participate.

I think that the question:

Does this stimulate increased tax revenue?

is a big one for me.  Sports team to not generate any sales revenue, they divert existing leisure spending... so they must contribute to property tax increases.  I do not see developers being eager to take on a rezoning among the Dr. NOs of the Elizabeth neighborhood landuse committee.

[kermit]

So there is an intent to repay?

12 minutes ago, archiham04 said:

 Sports team to not generate any sales revenue, they divert existing leisure spending.

This isn't necessarily true. If a team attracts fans from outside of CharMeck that is new money in the local economy -- hotels, bars restaurants, parking, CATS fares etc.

Teams might also pull money out of the pockets of locals who might have gone out of town to watch pro soccer etc. I spend significantly more money in Charlotte now that the Knights have moved than I did when they were in Fort Mill (I went to way more games in Greensboro, Greenville, Durham and Winston than in Fort Mill)

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by kermit

[archiham04]

According to the local talking heads on the radio that are supposed "experts"  the impact of out-of-towners coming into town for professional sports is too low to even consider.

[SgtCampsalot]

6 minutes ago, kermit said:

This isn't necessarily true. If a team attracts fans from outside of CharMeck that is new money in the local economy. Hotels, bars restaurants, parking, CATS fares etc.

 

Triangle/Triad NC fans HOP on Amtrak, HOP off at Gateway, HOP on the Gold line, HOP off at Kings/Charlottetown, easy walk to Memorial/MLS stadium.

Transit nerd's Soccer wet dream.

[kermit]

4 minutes ago, archiham04 said:

According to the local talking heads on the radio that are supposed "experts"  the impact of out-of-towners coming into town for professional sports is too low to even consider.

I go to lots of games, even at the minor league level its not unusual to see >10% of fans from out of town. I wouldn't consider that to be insignificant.

[kermit]

19 minutes ago, kermit said:

So there is an intent to repay?

According to the Observer there is not an intent to repay the $43.7M, instead the County will lend the Smith $75 million which will be repaid over 25 years. [eye roll]

" In addition to its contribution toward construction, Mecklenburg County would finance $75 million of the team’s costs and be reimbursed at $4.26 million annually over 25 years. The county would manage design and construction of the stadium."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article127702734.html

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article127702734.html#storylink=cpy

Edited January 20, 2017 by kermit

[sakami]

Is there really any potential development that could pop up around a renovated/rebuilt Memorial? CPCC has a stranglehold on most of the immediate blocks and Grubb has shown zero real interest in building out his Elizabeth Avenue land. 

[J-Rob]

4 hours ago, sakami said:

Is there really any potential development that could pop up around a renovated/rebuilt Memorial? CPCC has a stranglehold on most of the immediate blocks and Grubb has shown zero real interest in building out his Elizabeth Avenue land. 

Maybe this would push Grubb.  Hopefully he isn't just completely land banking but has actual intent to use the land.  There is also development occurring up 7th street toward Caswell, so this could feasibly help bridge the redevelopment gap between Hawthorne and Uptown along 7th street.

Edited January 21, 2017 by J-Rob

[archiham04]

I have heard that most of the Grubb property is tied somehow to deals with the hospital.  Even if Grubb went gangbuster would you say that it was the staduim or the Gold line dust that made it fly?

I just made a layer on the development map for "undevelopable" land around the stadium.  It is probably an understatement.

I think Memorial is the right spot, but I do not think that it is the right time for MLS for Charlotte.  The cost is too high, the payback is not there.  We need to start small and build a nice modest multi-use stadium for the independence.