Hochman

The forum for ranting, raving, complaining and praising
Post Reply
User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Hochman

Post by thrill »

tlombard wrote:To be honest I already hate Sporting KC and don't even have a remotely valid reason.
Their name is a valid reason.

tlombard
tl;dr
Posts: 5053
Joined: May 21 09, 12:41 pm

Re: Hochman

Post by tlombard »

That is actually one thing I despise.

My issue should be more with a really good friend and the other soccer parents from the days when their son was really, really into soccer. He was playing with a select team and the parents were crazy. They all thought that their kid was the best and going to get a scholarship to college for soccer, blah, blah, blah. His team became associated with Sporting KC and then it really got out of control. I can't blame the team for how they ran things because it was a brilliant move on their part but the parents thought it was some really huge deal and would let you know. Every month the team would get to 'send' two kids to KC to 'train' with Sporting KC.

According to the parents (and trickled down to the kids), that meant that little Tommy was a great soccer player and the team was personally inviting them to practice with them so they could see him play as if they were interested in him as a player.

In reality, there are dozens of 'affiliated' clubs and the team simply runs a marketing program. Great move by the team but the parents ruined it for me.

When little Tommy gets invited, the family packs up for a weekend and takes a trip to KC. Little Tommy gets lumped in with dozens of other kids where somebody runs them through the same drills that they do back at home and one or two of the professional players makes an appearance at the practice. And they PAY to 'train' with the team. Then of course there is always a home game that weekend so the families all buy tickets to the game. They aren't scouting little Tommy, it's a marketing tactic that works brilliantly because Tommy is now a huge Sporting KC fan and his delusional parents think that little Tommy is going to be a professional player when he grows up and start getting an ego but of course the other soccer parents have the same ego because there kid has also 'trained' with the team and they all just turn into monsters and bad mouth all the other kids and parents. I've seen and heard some really ugly stuff from parents revolving around freaking youth soccer.

I enjoy the sport of soccer, played growing up and played for years as an adult but I absolutely hate select youth soccer and the egos involved.

So yeah, my beef really isn't with Sporting KC as much as what I've seen their admittedly brilliant marketing/club affiliation program turn adults into horrible human beings.

User avatar
Famous Mortimer
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 3636
Joined: November 14 14, 5:23 am
Location: Cherokee

Re: Hochman

Post by Famous Mortimer »

Perhaps the stadium is a job for another thread, but according to CBS News the wannabe owners don't even have the rights to the city-owned land yet, and they're already saying they'd need it either free or at very low tax to make it economical for them (but I thought soccer was so popular people would be queueing round the block to get in? Why would they still need tax breaks to turn a profit?) This, of course, would mean the city would benefit less from having the stadium there (the plans are for it to go behind Union Station, apparently).

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/03/21/ ... -election/

And, of course, none of the owners-to-be live in the city, and therefore won't even have to pay for the stadium out of their own taxes.

tlombard
tl;dr
Posts: 5053
Joined: May 21 09, 12:41 pm

Re: Hochman

Post by tlombard »

I'm still voting for it. Screw it. Plenty of my tax money goes to things that I don't support but I'd actually go to soccer games there so I'm going to vote yes on Tuesday. If they don't get me for this, they're going to get me for something else one way or another. At least I'll enjoy the stadium if it gets built and a team comes.

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Puppy Murderer
Posts: 9334
Joined: April 25 06, 6:07 pm
Location: Across the River

Re: Hochman

Post by Transmogrified Tiger »

Famous Mortimer wrote:Perhaps the stadium is a job for another thread, but according to CBS News the wannabe owners don't even have the rights to the city-owned land yet, and they're already saying they'd need it either free or at very low tax to make it economical for them (but I thought soccer was so popular people would be queueing round the block to get in? Why would they still need tax breaks to turn a profit?) This, of course, would mean the city would benefit less from having the stadium there (the plans are for it to go behind Union Station, apparently).

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2017/03/21/ ... -election/

And, of course, none of the owners-to-be live in the city, and therefore won't even have to pay for the stadium out of their own taxes.
Running an MLS team certainly isn't a charity, and the league and sport are continuing to gain popularity, but there's a distinction between it and other major sports. There is no billion dollar TV contract and profits aren't through the roof. Having public money contribute to the structural cost of having a stadium could be the difference between the franchise being profitable or not, unlike NFL teams or any MLB teams trying to upgrade 20 year old stadiums. If you're of the mind that if they can't make every last detail work without government money than it shouldn't happen then that's fine, but we can also call a spade a spade. This isn't a case of asking for government money just to make the rich richer, it's the difference in it being a viable project or not.

tlombard
tl;dr
Posts: 5053
Joined: May 21 09, 12:41 pm

Re: Hochman

Post by tlombard »

I also have to agree with TT on the difference between MLS and the NFL/MLB deal. I don't think that after paying the expansion fee and all the other associated costs with starting an MLS team there is actually enough money to privately finance construction of a stadium and not go under. I don't know the financial situations on the prospective ownership group, but I don't think they are billionaires who can afford to burn that much money. The league may be growing but it isn't to the point where an MLS team is a cash cow like the others.

I take a much different stance on public money going to NFL owners by far. No way. And I know there are people who are up in arms over the deal for BPV and the next phase of BPV but at the same time, I think BPV has actually out performed expectations and hasn't been a bad deal for the city at all. Even if you account for money that is spent there on game days instead of other establishments, there are a lot of other events at BPV that keep the place raking in the cash more than other establishments in the area. I know I'll probably get skewered, but I still like BPV. I prefer Kilroy's on game days but I actually find myself at BPV on non-game days way more than I ever went to any of the other places in the area. I also have no problem spending my tax money on upgrading Scottrade. That place is way more than just Blues hockey, is owned by the city and has events probably 300 days a year where it is bringing in revenue. That's how things should be if we're spending public money on it.
Last edited by tlombard on March 30 17, 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10883
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Hochman

Post by Schlich »

tlombard wrote:I also have to agree with TT on the difference between MLS and the NFL/MLB deal. I don't think that after paying the expansion fee and all the other associated costs with starting an MLS team there is actually enough money to privately finance construction of a stadium and not go under. I don't know the financial situations on the prospective ownership group, but I don't think they are billionaires who can afford to burn that much money. The league may be growing but it isn't to the point where an MLS team is a cash cow like the others.
Here ya go:

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog ... -residency

tlombard
tl;dr
Posts: 5053
Joined: May 21 09, 12:41 pm

Re: Hochman

Post by tlombard »

Schlich wrote:
tlombard wrote:I also have to agree with TT on the difference between MLS and the NFL/MLB deal. I don't think that after paying the expansion fee and all the other associated costs with starting an MLS team there is actually enough money to privately finance construction of a stadium and not go under. I don't know the financial situations on the prospective ownership group, but I don't think they are billionaires who can afford to burn that much money. The league may be growing but it isn't to the point where an MLS team is a cash cow like the others.
Here ya go:

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog ... -residency

That made my head hurt!!!

User avatar
Famous Mortimer
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 3636
Joined: November 14 14, 5:23 am
Location: Cherokee

Re: Hochman

Post by Famous Mortimer »

tlombard wrote:

That made my head hurt!!!
To sum up - there are lots of people with lots of money behind this. One of whom owns STL FC and presumably knows exactly how much interest there is in soccer in the city.

Ultimately, I don't like the sport all that much and that colours my perception at least a little. But if I wanted to set up a business and didn't have enough money to do it, it wouldn't be okay for me to ask the city to raise taxes for local people in order to fund my business. Therefore, if a football team isn't economically viable (which was the argument made above), why are "we" (the taxpayers of the city) being asked to fund it? If they think it's going to make money in the near future, but don't want to dip into their own pockets to set the business up, then get a loan.

This is a serious question, not just the rhetorical device I was using in the last paragraph. How much "prestige" and extra money for the city did the Rams bring? Compared to how much we gave them in tax breaks, public money for the stadium, and so on? I didn't move here til after they left and don't have any real sense of it.

tlombard
tl;dr
Posts: 5053
Joined: May 21 09, 12:41 pm

Re: Hochman

Post by tlombard »

In the end, the Rams brought no prestige to the city since they were utter garbage on the field with no real hope of being more than a 7-9 team and it was obvious that they were looking to bail on the city. There were a few great years where there was a ton of excitement, tailgating and money being spent around the dome but the deal and lease that brought the team here was complete garbage and very bad for the city in general. The city can actually make MORE money from the stadium now that the team is gone. That's how bad the deal was. I think the Rams only paid $250k or something small like that to lease the stadium every year while keeping the profits and with the field, the city couldn't rent out the stadium for conventions from August to January because the field was down. Now they can actually use the stadium for conventions and I believe they are making more off of the stadium now than they were with the Rams here. Still a losing proposition with the debt though.

And I don't disagree with the questions on why taxpayers are funding a professional sports team but at the same time, my tax money goes to other things I don't like and I can't stop it so screw it, at least I'll enjoy a soccer team if it gets passed. If it doesn't then I'll be just fine, but I hope it does pass. I've seen both sides of the stadium argument about how it's public money and the other side saying that the money will be raised purely by taxes on the events at the stadium. It is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't care. Build it. I've given up on expecting any government to do what's really right by the people and at least I'll enjoy a soccer team. In a perfect world, no public money would go to subsidize any business but I just don't have faith in the people who hold office in at any level to do the right thing so I'm just going to sell out and hope for things I can enjoy.

Post Reply