Jump to content

MLS Stadium thread


Macksam

Recommended Posts

On 4/16/2021 at 12:41 PM, camchatkaFC said:

Now -- especially in Canada -- stadia are often funded by some contribution of public funds with an idea that they will serve the most people with the most options. You are more likely to end up with a stadium designed to meet everyone's needs (i.e., CFL football, soccer, rugby etc..) so it serves nobody very well.

Whereas with major league sport American franchises, the Forbes top 100 richest list owner just extorts the taxpayers with the threat of a franchise move and he gets his way.  Pegula is the latest but also Tepper in Carolina, though I believe that the latter is trying to piggy back his new Charlotte FC MLS team as part of his leverage to getting a brand new stadium (though the existing stadium has had signicant recent renos already funded by the taxpayer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, red card said:

NFL owners are like great vampire squids wrapped around the face of their fan base and taxpayers, relentlessly jamming their blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Other than Jets/Giants & Rams/Chargers, all recent stadium builds have used public welfare.

https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_cc7e0baa-a88f-4bf8-87b9-80c115be9e6d_2196x1306.png

To be fair.  There are very very few clubs in any sport around the world that can justify funding the investment required for a stadium by going 100% through private financing.   You need to have super high box office revenues. That means solid inelastic demand coupled with constant sellouts.  This usually means having a strong corporate base of support.   Therefore, they can recoup their investment or realise a positive ROI on the stadium investment by jacking the Season ticket & suite prices (to the new stadium) to exhobitant levels while barely even notice a drop in the demand.  Or alternatively,  they will sell licences and those seat licences end up covering much of the stadium costs. 
 

Dallas is a place where you can do that with an NFL stadium.  Same with New york with a Ball park. Maybe two or three canadian NHL markets.  And, a couple of the super clubs in european soccer.  Other than that, it makes no sen$$$e to attempt to build without any kind of public funds. 
 

That chart that you posted, proves it.  It shows that:  the bigger and more economically properous that the market is,  the lesser the need for public funds to build a stadium.

Edited by Free kick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

In the NFL's private/public scenario, the only question I have is with who actually owns the stadium.

That's the difference between NFL & European football. In the NFL, the owners get public funding but end up owning the stadium & the land. At best, the city gets a share of the stadium concession/parking revenues.

In Europe, if there is public involvement, the stadium ownership is a public/private partnership. Or the club pays the city for the lease.

For example, Man City's stadium was first built for the Commonwealth Games. The conversion to a football stadium was funded by both the city and club. The later expansion was again funded by both the city and club. The city owns 100% of the stadium and leases it to the club. 

There is also much more 100% privately funded stadiums. The Premier League has about half of its clubs playing in privately built or bought stadiums. Rather than the size of the market, private stadium funding is more dependent on the owner's wealth. There are also more varied ownership structures with private equity and other non-club owners having a stake in the stadium. One of the reasons Euro football club values aren't as inflated as American team values.

EU regulations also play a part in limiting governments shelling out money indiscriminately for stadium builds. And they also tend to play in stadiums for 50+ years. While the US tends to follow the tear down model which means owners are coming to get their beaks wet every 20 years or so.

 

Edited by red card
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/9/2021 at 9:56 PM, red card said:

That's the difference between NFL & European football. In the NFL, the owners get public funding but end up owning the stadium & the land. At best, the city gets a share of the stadium concession/parking revenues.

In Europe, if there is public involvement, the stadium ownership is a public/private partnership. Or the club pays the city for the lease.

For example, Man City's stadium was first built for the Commonwealth Games. The conversion to a football stadium was funded by both the city and club. The later expansion was again funded by both the city and club. The city owns 100% of the stadium and leases it to the club. 

There is also much more 100% privately funded stadiums. The Premier League has about half of its clubs playing in privately built or bought stadiums. Rather than the size of the market, private stadium funding is more dependent on the owner's wealth. There are also more varied ownership structures with private equity and other non-club owners having a stake in the stadium. One of the reasons Euro football club values aren't as inflated as American team values.

EU regulations also play a part in limiting governments shelling out money indiscriminately for stadium builds. And they also tend to play in stadiums for 50+ years. While the US tends to follow the tear down model which means owners are coming to get their beaks wet every 20 years or so.

 

This is often the case, true, good point. 

Then there are formulas that are used, such as when rezoning is involved. Because urban land is so pricey in dense European cities, by selling a stadium site, or maybe a historical training ground in an urban centre, for housing or public services, you can make a chunk of money to put into a new stadium. But of course, by accepting such proposals, city administrations are effectively gifting funds to teams to build stadiums, although indirectly.

But this is not majority, for example, in Spain. In Spain only about a third of stadiums are owned by the clubs themselves. The rest are owned either by the city government or the region, the autonomous community. In Spain club-owned stadiums are Barcelona, Real Madrid, Betis, Sevila (then there is a third publicly owned stadium in Sevilla, which was a silly waste of money for a deluded Olympics bid), Atletico, Valencia and Espanyol. Valladolid just relegated is owned by the club (Ronaldo Nazario). In Bilbao it is a public-private partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

This is often the case, true, good point. 

Then there are formulas that are used, such as when rezoning is involved. Because urban land is so pricey in dense European cities, by selling a stadium site, or maybe a historical training ground in an urban centre, for housing or public services, you can make a chunk of money to put into a new stadium. But of course, by accepting such proposals, city administrations are effectively gifting funds to teams to build stadiums, although indirectly.

But this is not majority, for example, in Spain. In Spain only about a third of stadiums are owned by the clubs themselves. The rest are owned either by the city government or the region, the autonomous community. In Spain club-owned stadiums are Barcelona, Real Madrid, Betis, Sevila (then there is a third publicly owned stadium in Sevilla, which was a silly waste of money for a deluded Olympics bid), Atletico, Valencia and Espanyol. Valladolid just relegated is owned by the club (Ronaldo Nazario). In Bilbao it is a public-private partnership.

Wouldn't that be 1 1/2 stadiums for Valencia - the Mestalla and the 15-year old construction site which is supposed to be the Nou Mestalla? 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

Wouldn't that be 1 1/2 stadiums for Valencia - the Mestalla and the 15-year old construction site which is supposed to be the Nou Mestalla? 😕

I've never been to Mestalla. 

This was a case where the value of the old site rezone was supposed to pay for the new stadium, then the 2008 financial crisis hit and the bottom dropped out. Also, Valencia under the conservatives was a nest of corruption. 

I guess when they changed owners and Lim was dealing with the debt the plans got stalled, or put back. They are now back on a schedule and have 5 years to finish. 

I don't happen to like Valencia much either, I wouldn't care if they relegated. 

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...