MLS in Charlotte - 2021

[Dcarnys]

6 hours ago, mad_park said:

Any chance the Smiths propose building it up at the speedway property? They can say they tried to work w/ the city and it didn't work out.

MLS won't go for it, maybe if they build the stadium in the middle of Concord mills.

[Missmylab4]

Guess now we wait and see if the Smith's will pony up the city's share and proceed. I'm really unsure what will happen, I definitely think the city council wasn't expecting to vote, from the odd reaction of canceling a meeting via Tweet. I think the deal won't work in Concord, think that won't be strong enough against the 10 other cities. Especially, when they've said they won't look at suburban locations for expansion. 

 

Edit: from what I can tell they have the right to build on Memorial, they just will need to pick up the extra $43 mill the city isn't giving them. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Missmylab4

[urbanlover568]

This deal is toast. Good riddance. Maybe first focusing on HB2 before bidding on athletics who hate us now because of HB2.

[ChessieCat]

On 1/25/2017 at 8:10 PM, ah59396 said:

I'm a huge soccer fan and want nothing more than an MLS team in Charlotte.  But I'm against this.  It's totally a personal thing for me, but I'm sick and tired of watching billionaires get pushed huge sums of tax payer dollars for vanity projects like a soccer team.  If we got a privately funded stadium, I'd be the first in line to buy PSL's or whatever else they came up with.  But I have no interest in giving millions of tax dollars to a billionaire.  This city needs quality of life investments.  Better walkability, more parks and recreation, greenways and improved transit.  Schools, better access to healthcare, the list goes on.  Talk about fund allocation all you want, but it makes me sick to see something like this pushed right to the front of the line while other projects sit dormant and underfunded.  That's all I got folks.  #rant

And I'll say the same thing when it comes time for the Panthers stadium.

I agree with you 100%.  You know I'm a huge soccer fan and watch all the big matches at Holligans/Ramblewood/BofA but I am also completely against transferring millions in tax dollars to billionaire owners who can easily finance these projects themsleves.

Instead of financing the stadium, the city could use that $$$ to complete the streetcar extension to the west side which would benefit Memorial Stadium anyway.  Don't forget that the stadium currently hosts HS football and improving access to CPCC is a win-win for everyone.

Lastly, I respect the Richardson family for having paid the NFL franchise fee with their own money and financing BofA through PSLs.   That is my #rant

Edited January 27, 2017 by ChessieCat

[atlrvr]

The Panther's franchise fee was $140mm.  The next new franchise in the NFL was the Houston Texans, and their franchise fee was $700mm, and the public kicked in $289mm of the $474mm of Reliant Stadium.

The real issue here is 2 fold:

1) MLS franchise fees have doubled since last expansion

2) MLS stadium expectations (quality/fit finish/etc) have > doubled since last new stadium

MLS is almost fully expanded.  There are teams 27-28.  That means likely only 1 more round of expansion to get to 30 teams.  Even if franchise fees increase to $200-$250mm, that's not a lot of money to be divided out among the 28 existing owners.  This is why public money is required to get a decent return.

IF Charlotte wants to try for teams 29-30, it gets MUCH MUCH worse. The expansion fees will be higher, and there aren't expected to be any future expansions to generate returns for those new owners.  Team ticket sales doesn't do better than breakeven on operating costs, and MLS is still a way off from meaningful TV rights deals.

I know it's easy to pick on a Billionaire, but asking someone worth ~$1B to spend 35% of their net-worth of something as risky as MLS, and at BEST get a total return of 5% in 5 years is not something that makes sense.  Even worse, in the next round, asking them to spend likely 50% of their net worth for 0% return, or actually negative return is even less likely, which means the public ask for teams 29-30 will be 2x (or more) higher.

If you guys want this without public subsidy, you're going to have to either convince someone much richer than anyone who currently lives in Charlotte to move here, or at least be a benevolent benefactor and buy a team in Charlotte

Raleigh has their rich guy, who has $9 billion....those $8B more than the Smith's makes a big difference in willingness to fund vanity projects.

[CLT2014]

^ Maybe MLS will keep expanding to 100 teams to keep the pyramid scheme going to fund all the current owners with ever increasing expansion fees on a business that doesn't generate a return without recruiting new members. I believe the city should have approved their $43.5 million out of a special tax only to be used for tourism/sports, etc... The county should not have approved their $43.5 million on the backs of homeowner and business owner's property taxes. If the county does not have other more pressing priorities, a ballot initiative should have been placed to allow citizens to determine if they want to have their property tax dollars go towards an MLS stadium. I would guess if I was put to a vote if would fail and citizens would prefer a tax break. 

The bad economics of MLS is just further proof that taxpayer money should not be put on the line. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by CLT2014

[CLT2014]

Phoenix was invited by the MLS to bid yesterday and joins the cities that have put their hat in the ring. They got an ownership group that has secured land on the Tempe/Scottsdale border. Phoenix is the largest television market without an MLS team.

 

[ChessieCat]

 

 

43 minutes ago, atlrvr said:

The Panther's franchise fee was $140mm.  The next new franchise in the NFL was the Houston Texans, and their franchise fee was $700mm, and the public kicked in $289mm of the $474mm of Reliant Stadium.

The real issue here is 2 fold:

1) MLS franchise fees have doubled since last expansion

2) MLS stadium expectations (quality/fit finish/etc) have > doubled since last new stadium

MLS is almost fully expanded.  There are teams 27-28.  That means likely only 1 more round of expansion to get to 30 teams.  Even if franchise fees increase to $200-$250mm, that's not a lot of money to be divided out among the 28 existing owners.  This is why public money is required to get a decent return.

IF Charlotte wants to try for teams 29-30, it gets MUCH MUCH worse. The expansion fees will be higher, and there aren't expected to be any future expansions to generate returns for those new owners.  Team ticket sales doesn't do better than breakeven on operating costs, and MLS is still a way off from meaningful TV rights deals.

I know it's easy to pick on a Billionaire, but asking someone worth ~$1B to spend 35% of their net-worth of something as risky as MLS, and at BEST get a total return of 5% in 5 years is not something that makes sense.  Even worse, in the next round, asking them to spend likely 50% of their net worth for 0% return, or actually negative return is even less likely, which means the public ask for teams 29-30 will be 2x (or more) higher.

If you guys want this without public subsidy, you're going to have to either convince someone much richer than anyone who currently lives in Charlotte to move here, or at least be a benevolent benefactor and buy a team in Charlotte

Raleigh has their rich guy, who has $9 billion....those $8B more than the Smith's makes a big difference in willingness to fund vanity projects.

You answered it perfectly by saying public money is required to get a decent return.  It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to transfer their wealth to a single owner to make sure he gets a decent return.

BTW I've attended every major soccer match at BofA stadium since 2010 and must say that I loved the atmosphere at every one.  If getting the MLS is so important, then the franchise can play the first few years at BofA which is only used 10-12 times a year anyway.  It doesn't lack for atmosphere even with the upper deck cordoned off.  The Seattle Sounders, NE Revolution, and Vancouver Whitecaps all play in pro football stadiums and have a great gameday experience.  There's no need to rush to build a new stadium.

[birky]

On 1/25/2017 at 8:10 PM, ah59396 said:

I'm a huge soccer fan and want nothing more than an MLS team in Charlotte.  But I'm against this.  It's totally a personal thing for me, but I'm sick and tired of watching billionaires get pushed huge sums of tax payer dollars for vanity projects like a soccer team.  If we got a privately funded stadium, I'd be the first in line to buy PSL's or whatever else they came up with.  But I have no interest in giving millions of tax dollars to a billionaire.  This city needs quality of life investments.  Better walkability, more parks and recreation, greenways and improved transit.  Schools, better access to healthcare, the list goes on.  Talk about fund allocation all you want, but it makes me sick to see something like this pushed right to the front of the line while other projects sit dormant and underfunded.  That's all I got folks.  #rant

And I'll say the same thing when it comes time for the Panthers stadium.

Agree with all of this.  I'm not in any way against public investment, but an MLS team in Charlotte would be a luxury. There are so many more pressing quality of life issues for residents in this city than another publicly-subsidized pro sports team. Pro leagues will continue to extract public money from local and state governments until those groups stand up to them.

As an aside, the next big issue for me was the artificial urgency of this decision.  I mean, clearly by design to squeeze the city & county into making a decision without a full vetting process.

While the total cost to the city & county were not staggering sums, how many impact studies were performed before the street car was approved?  [I have no idea, but I'm guessing more than zero].  I was sort of disgusted with Center City Partners, who were pushing approval of the deal really hard on social media.  Their press release included a throw away comment about $500 million in expected economic development around a new stadium, but were completely silent about releasing their supposed economic impact study to the public.  Although entirely unsurprising, for a group like CCP to push the general public on this, yet refuse to release their study (if it even exists), remains a joke.

Edited January 27, 2017 by birky

[cjd5050]

22 minutes ago, birky said:

Agree with all of this.  I'm not in any way against public investment, but an MLS team in Charlotte would be a luxury. There are so many more pressing quality of life issues for residents in this city than another publicly-subsidized pro sports team. Pro leagues will continue to extract public money from local and state governments until those groups stand up to them.

I understand where you're coming from but honestly this perspective makes me sad.  I grew up in a rust belt region where it was almost nothing but bad news for my entire childhood.  

Cities are always going to have pressing quality of life issues.  Cities are always going to need infrastructure, improvements to schools and the like.  Cities are always going to need things.  And there is nothing wrong with people using their voice to secure funding for these efforts.

That said, there are only some cities that either have the courage or ability to reach beyond the pressing issues and try to be better.  There are cities that just have more and because of more they become places to go rather than places to leave.  There are some cities that realize you have to keep everyone happy and sometimes that means spending money on luxuries rather than necessities.  

What's most interesting is that on a site like UP, where people (for lack of a better phrase) complain or have issue with developers not pushing the envelope in their design/materials/et al turn around and use the same pragmatic view when it comes to their tax dollars.  Going for a MLS team is like going for an extraordinary design or those 10 extra floors.  Might not make sense to the CPA but there is an intrinsic value there.  

I don't have a problem with pro leagues and understand they are a luxury that comes with a price.  Some may not agree...so to each their own.

 

[DMann]

Well said.

[Desert Power]

I just think a renovated, highly used Memorial Stadium would be a great public amenity.  Being along the street car.  Would be really exciting to go to even minor soccer league games there, but an MLS team could be yuge.

[CLT2014]

11 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

 Might not make sense to the CPA but there is an intrinsic value there.  

This is bank town, haha! Everything you said was well articulated. It is too bad this was rushed. If there could have been more time to show what value could be generated for citizens and how their tax dollars would be put to work, this might have worked. 

IMO we were a long shot to begin with. I think Sacramento, San Diego, Phoenix, and San Antonio will get teams. I think Raleigh and Charlotte will get left out.

Edited January 27, 2017 by CLT2014

[ES Charlotte]

18 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

 What's most interesting is that on a site like UP, where people (for lack of a better phrase) complain or have issue with developers not pushing the envelope in their design/materials/et al turn around and use the same pragmatic view when it comes to their tax dollars.  Going for a MLS team is like going for an extraordinary design or those 10 extra floors.  Might not make sense to the CPA but there is an intrinsic value there.  

I don't have a problem with pro leagues and understand they are a luxury that comes with a price.  Some may not agree...so to each their own.

 

This ^

and...

what atlrvr said

Lazytown

[InSouthPark]

1 hour ago, ChessieCat said:

 

 

You answered it perfectly by saying public money is required to get a decent return.  It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to transfer their wealth to a single owner to make sure he gets a decent return.

BTW I've attended every major soccer match at BofA stadium since 2010 and must say that I loved the atmosphere at every one.  If getting the MLS is so important, then the franchise can play the first few years at BofA which is only used 10-12 times a year anyway.  It doesn't lack for atmosphere even with the upper deck cordoned off.  The Seattle Sounders, NE Revolution, and Vancouver Whitecaps all play in pro football stadiums and have a great gameday experience.  There's no need to rush to build a new stadium.

Those are all field turf stadiums.  No chance the Panthers allow them to play on their real grass 20 times a year unless Jerry Richardson bought the team. And they wont be installing field turf. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by InSouthPark

[ChessieCat]

 

11 minutes ago, InSouthPark said:

Those are all field turf stadiums.  No chance the Panthers allow them to play on their real grass 20 times a year unless Jerry Richardson bought the team. And they wont be installing field turf. 

Then make Jerry a junior partner.  Paul Allen is a minority owner of the Sounders for that very reason, his Seahawks operate the stadium.

32 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

What's most interesting is that on a site like UP, where people (for lack of a better phrase) complain or have issue with developers not pushing the envelope in their design/materials/et al turn around and use the same pragmatic view when it comes to their tax dollars.  Going for a MLS team is like going for an extraordinary design or those 10 extra floors.  Might not make sense to the CPA but there is an intrinsic value there.  

I don't have a problem with pro leagues and understand they are a luxury that comes with a price.  Some may not agree...so to each their own.

 

If luxury comes at a price then spend the $43 Million on an audacious design.  I studied abroad in Bilbao, Spain in the 90's and saw how their Guggenheim Museum changed the fortunes of that rust-belt city overnight.  It turns 20 this year and Bilbao is on the tourist map because of it.  The call it the "Bilbao" effect:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1HL3drXNNWQVq7tpC6pMRsJ/the-bilbao-effect-how-20-years-of-gehrys-guggenheim-transformed-the-city

Hamburg followed through by recently opening their Elbphiharmonie concert hall which has pushed the limits of design:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2017/01/12/elbphilharmonie-hamburg-germany-concert-hall/96447564/

If Charlotte needs to spend taxdollars earmarked for "tourism", then spend it on an audacious design that people will truly travel far and wide for!  A new Charlotte soccer stadium won't be Old Trafford or Anfield, sorry...

[cjd5050]

19 minutes ago, ChessieCat said:

If Charlotte needs to spend taxdollars earmarked for "tourism", then spend it on an audacious design that people will truly travel far and wide for!  A new Charlotte soccer stadium won't be Old Trafford or Anfield, sorry...

The CRVA assumed that the stadium would attract 21,692 fans a game, the league average. There are currently 17 regular season. The tourism group assumed that 25 percent of the fans would be from out of town, and that those fans would each spend $242 per game. Based on those estimates, the CRVA believes the city/county will receive $2.3 million in new tax revenue a year.

What you're really saying, or at least what it appears, is that a tourist from Philly coming to Charlotte to watch a football match and drink beer is not good enough.  What Charlotte needs to get a different kind of tourist who comes here for the art and drinks wine.  

Tourism is tourism.  Just like elitists are elitists, sorry.....

[ah59396]

6 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

The CRVA assumed that the stadium would attract 21,692 fans a game, the league average. There are currently 17 regular season. The tourism group assumed that 25 percent of the fans would be from out of town, and that those fans would each spend $242 per game. Based on those estimates, the CRVA believes the city/county will receive $2.3 million in new tax revenue a year.

What you're really saying, or at least what it appears, is that a tourist from Philly coming to Charlotte to watch a football match and drink beer is not good enough.  What Charlotte needs to get a different kind of tourist who comes here for the art and drinks wine.  

Tourism is tourism.  Just like elitists are elitists, sorry.....

He's not saying that at all, you're putting words in his mouth.  Where are those CRVA estimates coming from?  What studies did they do in the last 2 weeks of time to support that economic impact?  That's part of the problem, it's hasty and being forced down our throats.

He's implying that the focus of that money, if it's to only be used for tourism, should be most bang for buck.  IF that's MLS, then fine.  But I'd bet it isn't.  Has nothing to do with elitism.

[ChessieCat]

8 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

The CRVA assumed that the stadium would attract 21,692 fans a game, the league average. There are currently 17 regular season. The tourism group assumed that 25 percent of the fans would be from out of town, and that those fans would each spend $242 per game. Based on those estimates, the CRVA believes the city/county will receive $2.3 million in new tax revenue a year.

What you're really saying, or at least what it appears, is that a tourist from Philly coming to Charlotte to watch a football match and drink beer is not good enough.  What Charlotte needs to get a different kind of tourist who comes here for the art and drinks wine.  

Tourism is tourism.  Just like elitists are elitists, sorry.....

Believe me I've seen plenty of Eagles fans travel to Charlotte, get drunk, start fights and get arrested cause the whole trip is cheaper than a home game in Philly.  If that's the type of tourist you want, you answered your own question!!!

[cjd5050]

4 minutes ago, ah59396 said:

He's not saying that at all, you're putting words in his mouth.  Where are those CRVA estimates coming from?  What studies did they do in the last 2 weeks of time to support that economic impact?  That's part of the problem, it's hasty and being forced down our throats.

He's implying that the focus of that money, if it's to only be used for tourism, should be most bang for buck.  IF that's MLS, then fine.  But I'd bet it isn't.  Has nothing to do with elitism.

You sure about that?

Just now, ChessieCat said:

Believe me I've seen plenty of Eagles fans travel to Charlotte, get drunk, start fights and get arrested cause the whole trip is cheaper than a home game in Philly.  If that's the type of tourist you want, you answered your own question!!!

You realize we're taking about Charlotte right?  A city that has a NASCAR hall of fame and is famous for BBQ and Fried Chicken.  Not sure where you live but maybe you need to get out more to realize it.

I like tourism.  I like people.  All kinds.  I try not to discriminate as long as the money is there.  Sure Philly has a team and yes Philly fans are known to suck.  But NY, Toronto, D.C., Montreal, Boston, Chicago and Miami has teams as well.  Any issue with those fans?  

 

[ah59396]

Just now, cjd5050 said:

You sure about that?

 

Which part?

[cjd5050]

5 minutes ago, ah59396 said:

Which part?

The part about them being an elitist.  

To your other question, the CRVA figures were posted in the CO.  Not sure how accurate they are either.  That said, I don't think that the numbers sound too unreasonable.  Charlotte is a HUB airport so getting here is not that difficult and compared to other cities, Charlotte is a pretty solid value.  I have gone to Raleigh to watch a Sabres game several times and even with driving I have easily spent more than $242 per game.  

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by cjd5050
changed word

[ah59396]

Just now, cjd5050 said:

The part about him being an elitist.  

To your other question, the CRVA figures were posted in the CO.  Not sure how accurate they are either.  That said, I don't think that the numbers sound too unreasonable.  Charlotte is a HUB airport so getting here is not that difficult and compared to other cities, Charlotte is a pretty solid value.  I have gone to Raleigh to watch a Sabres game several times and even with driving I have easily spent more than $242 per game.  

 

Well I know the guy, so yeah, I'm sure.  I'd also recommend you avoid attacking people.  It dilutes the quality of any other point you intend to make on here.

[cjd5050]

Just now, ah59396 said:

Well I know the guy, so yeah, I'm sure.  I'd also recommend you avoid attacking people.  It dilutes the quality of any other point you intend to make on here.

I am just going off what the guy wrote.  In a MLS thread he suggested that if Charlotte wants tourism money it should build a museum and a MLS team is not worth the effort because it would be equal to Manchester United...then followed up by saying that people from Philly and their money isn't worth it because they are drunks who get arrested.  

elitist
[ih-lee-tist ey-lee‐] 

adjective
1. (of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society:

It doesn't matter if you know him or not.  I wasn't attacking him.  I was simply pointing out what he himself posted and then confirmed.  I was simply pointing out a view that he has since confirmed.  Maybe you should check your friendship bias.  

At the end of the day, Charlotte should welcome everyone and find ways to bring all types of people to our city.  Bring people who want to see the arts and other who want to see sports.  Suggesting that some groups of tourists are unwelcome is telling and those are not my words....but your friends.

[ah59396]

1 minute ago, cjd5050 said:

I am just going off what the guy wrote.  In a MLS thread he suggested that if Charlotte wants tourism money it should build a museum and a MLS team is not worth the effort because it would be equal to Manchester United...then followed up by saying that people from Philly and their money isn't worth it because they are drunks who get arrested.  

elitist
[ih-lee-tist ey-lee‐] 

adjective
1. (of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society:

It doesn't matter if you know him or not.  I wasn't attacking him.  I was simply pointing out what he himself posted and then confirmed.  I was simply pointing out a view that he has since confirmed.  Maybe you should check your friendship bias.  

At the end of the day, Charlotte should welcome everyone and find ways to bring all types of people to our city.  Bring people who want to see the arts and other who want to see sports.  Suggesting that some groups of tourists are unwelcome is telling and those are not my words....but your friends.

 

You're not pointing out anything, you're making things up to fit your narrative.  But you're showing your true colors now and I've lost interest in what you have to say.