NBA or MLS? (St. Louis, Liberty, Madison: price, club, vs.) - Missouri (MO) - Page 7 - City-Data Forum

ajf131 · 05-09-2009, 01:28 AM

St. Louis is a more likely candidate for the MLS. That seems to be a much more talked about thing besides the NBA, although St. Louis could certainly accomodate the NBA for sure.

Fishtacos · 05-09-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajf131

St. Louis is a more likely candidate for the MLS. That seems to be a much more talked about thing besides the NBA, although St. Louis could certainly accomodate the NBA for sure.

Why do you think St. Louis could "accomodate" the NBA as well as MLB, NFL, NHL?

St. Louis does well to accomodate those three, but where are they going to get the extra needed corporate revenue for those highly expensive six figure luxury suites? How many families are going to pluck down a couple of hundred bucks to go see the NBA and NHL several times in the same week, after they are already doing it for MLB and NFL? The question becomes how many are overlapping fans, and how many are separate fans, one or ther other? And do you have enough economic support from a combo of both to make all four of those major sports survive? At the very least, considering the medium sized population, the corporate dollar situation in Stl, considering the cost for fans, and so on, it's a very questionable proposition. It's not a proposition in this economy of course, but even in a good economy it's questionable at best.

Current Blues owner Dave Checketts, who knows a thing or two about this, with his work with the New York Knicks, Madison Square Garden and elsewhere, is on record many times saying he doesn't think St. Louis can support an NBA team. And, he's first a foremost an NBA guy, long before he ever became a hockey guy.

ajf131 · 05-09-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishtacos

Why do you think St. Louis could "accomodate" the NBA as well as MLB, NFL, NHL?

St. Louis does well to accomodate those three, but where are they going to get the extra needed corporate revenue for those highly expensive six figure luxury suites? How many families are going to pluck down a couple of hundred bucks to go see the NBA and NHL several times in the same week, after they are already doing it for MLB and NFL? The question becomes how many are overlapping fans, and how many are separate fans, one or ther other? And do you have enough economic support from a combo of both to make all four of those major sports survive? At the very least, considering the medium sized population, the corporate dollar situation in Stl, considering the cost for fans, and so on, it's a very questionable proposition. It's not a proposition in this economy of course, but even in a good economy it's questionable at best.

Current Blues owner Dave Checketts, who knows a thing or two about this, with his work with the New York Knicks, Madison Square Garden and elsewhere, is on record many times saying he doesn't think St. Louis can support an NBA team. And, he's first a foremost an NBA guy, long before he ever became a hockey guy.

Take a xanax, Fishtacos. I was simply inferring that if Cleveland can support the NBA, the NFL, the MLB, and the MLS, St. Louis could support just as many teams. These two cities are nearly identical in size (and by cities I mean metro areas).

northbayeric · 05-09-2009, 07:42 PM

I think I'm going to need to side with Fishtacos a bit on this discussion. It seems like St. Louis is much more of a college basketball town with the Billikens and secondarily the Mizzou Tigers. It's been quite a number of years since the St. Louis Hawks moved to Atlanta (and then the team moved somewhere else and I can't think off the top of my head just where).

So in terms of metro area populations, even though St. Louis and Cleveland are pretty even-steven, I'd be surprised, and pleasantly so, if St. Louis could support a new or relocated NBA team. It just seems like it's more into soccer than basketball (or at least it used to be).

(taking my daily dose of Pravastatin forthwith....!!)

northbayeric · 05-09-2009, 07:45 PM

Sorry....I'm just rereading ajf's post and I'd agree that St. Louis would be a more likely candidate for the MLS as he's said.

arch_genesis · 05-09-2009, 10:13 PM

I'd personally prefer to have an NBA team as the WPS is all the soccer I'll need and the league I prefer. I posted as much a few pages back when I re-upped this thread but unfortunately it got buried underneath a silly feud.

Anyway I'd prefer the NBA. I feel like the WPS is a tremendous league and its only going to get better. The WPS is arguably the best women's league in the world and you'll find people who will argue that its better than the MLS. I'd rather support the WPS first before worrying about an MLS team. On that note the Athletica got their first win of the season tonight so congrats to the girls. I really wish they didn't need the MLS to get a stadium built but unfortunately that's the way it is. People think the MLS is inherently better and more important because its a men's league.

I challenge the people who want an MLS team to support our WPS team Athletica. Go to a game and harass local tv stations because they don't have local coverage for games yet which is very disappointing, they also don't seem to have any local sponsors. Talk them up and enjoy their league because it is very good. Last weekends game was great and the week before that was great as well. Maybe w/ local support from all soccer fans in st. louis, and I'm told we have a lot, we can create the demand for them to have their own stadium and on this side of the river.

Fishtacos · 05-11-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajf131

Take a xanax, Fishtacos. I was simply inferring that if Cleveland can support the NBA, the NFL, the MLB, and the MLS, St. Louis could support just as many teams. These two cities are nearly identical in size (and by cities I mean metro areas).

I need to take a Xanax because I calmly, matter of factly asked you a simple innocent question? Wow. Perhaps that should be the other way around. If you do not like someone to ask you an open ended question regarding your post, perhaps this isn't the place for you to be?

Cleveland doesn't have the NHL. St. Louis has the NHL. That's a big difference. I believe St. Louis could and would support almost any professional sports and has done so, but at some point, there are too many teams to support.

Fishtacos · 05-11-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbayeric

I think I'm going to need to side with Fishtacos a bit on this discussion. It seems like St. Louis is much more of a college basketball town with the Billikens and secondarily the Mizzou Tigers. It's been quite a number of years since the St. Louis Hawks moved to Atlanta (and then the team moved somewhere else and I can't think off the top of my head just where).

So in terms of metro area populations, even though St. Louis and Cleveland are pretty even-steven, I'd be surprised, and pleasantly so, if St. Louis could support a new or relocated NBA team. It just seems like it's more into soccer than basketball (or at least it used to be).

(taking my daily dose of Pravastatin forthwith....!!)

It's about money, money, money, money, money, money, as opposed to what people like. St. Louis loves it sports pro and college. However, doing so at a one time event vs the annual grind are two different things.

MLS is more feasible because interest is there and cost is less. Less games, less cost per game, etc...only competing with Cardinals games for fans, and as everyone knows, the Cardinals have a National following and very large and wide fan base. MLS won't interfere with their attendance.

RjRobb2 · 05-11-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishtacos

MLS is more feasible because interest is there and cost is less. .

MLS is more feasible because their is an ownership group actively trying to place an expansion team in St. Louis. As far as I know, you cant say the same for the NBA.

A city getting a team is all about one thing and one thing only - a qualified ownership group. It's like opening a McDonald's, if you have all the qualifications the parent company are looking for, you will be granted a franchise.

arch_genesis · 05-11-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RjRobb2

MLS is more feasible because their is an ownership group actively trying to place an expansion team in St. Louis. As far as I know, you cant say the same for the NBA.

The WPS is even more feasible than the MLS and it's been accomplished already. Antonucci wanted a team in St. Louis and it got done. Garber used St. Louis as a threat to other candidate cities. Yet people still think an MLS team will be awarded. Cooper said he'd build the stadium in Collinsville regardless if he was awarded an MLS franchise this go around. The plan was to move the St. Louis Lions to USL-1 if the city wasn't awarded an MLS franchise. That didn't happen and I haven't heard from Cooper since.
I'm sure he's looking for more investors when Garber raises the entry fee for a team yet again.

Unfortunately, and this really pisses me off, St. Louis is going to need an MLS team before its "hotbed" (yeah right) supports Athletica. If this city can't support Athletica I pray to God it doesn't get an MLS franchise.

/bitter -- but wholly accurate rant