Started By
Message
Season ticket holder survey
Posted on 4/26/17 at 9:23 am
Posted on 4/26/17 at 9:23 am
Anyone get the season ticket holder survey about using the proposed MLS stadium?
You think this would eventually be the home stadium or just used for select games?
If done correctly this could be awesome.
You think this would eventually be the home stadium or just used for select games?
If done correctly this could be awesome.
3
Posted on 4/26/17 at 9:44 pm to Crimson
I think I got something about that months ago.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 2:52 pm to Crimson
Completed the survey. Absolutely awful idea to even consider moving home games off campus. Truly awful.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:02 pm to Crimson
quote:
If done correctly this could be awesome.
Only if the proposed MLS stadium ends up being put on West End. An off-campus stadium built to MLS standards is literally throwing in the white flag on being a competitive football team. To keep this shorter than my Anchor of Gold post, Vandy is going to give up a ton of money in attendance by going to an MLS stadium. Even at current attendance (reported aka paid attendance floats at 30k per game), Vandy would be losing between $150,000 and $275,000 for OOC and SEC games PLUS $1,125,000 for UT (assumed maximum capacity). These numbers are with a 25k capacity (which 16 of 22 MLS teams list as their max capacity as equal or less than).
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:20 am to DoreonthePlains
One of the reasons I like the current setup is Vandy being the last to keep everything together.
Why can they not built the new stadium on campus then lease it back to MLS? I do strongly favor mixed use facilities as the more events at a given venue, the lower the strain of taxpayers to foot a bill for empty dates.
Vandy (with attached school) has the higher probability of being there in 50 years than a MLS venue.
Heated seats = don't care
Seat back = do care
Fru Fru food = don't care
Quality (not Sodexo) common food reasonably priced = do care
Off campus footprint = don't care
On campus footprint = do care
Loud canned music = don't care
Live school band = do care
Corporate boxes = don't care
No bench seating = do care
What I am not seeing in the discussion is the reverse (building on campus) but making venue open to outside events (like MLS, concerts, and free events) to build the brand awareness for Vandy.
I think it is Iowa State or Kansas State who uses their stadium in the summer to show free movies which builds familiarity with the town folks to attending an event the school is playing in.
Why can they not built the new stadium on campus then lease it back to MLS? I do strongly favor mixed use facilities as the more events at a given venue, the lower the strain of taxpayers to foot a bill for empty dates.
Vandy (with attached school) has the higher probability of being there in 50 years than a MLS venue.
Heated seats = don't care
Seat back = do care
Fru Fru food = don't care
Quality (not Sodexo) common food reasonably priced = do care
Off campus footprint = don't care
On campus footprint = do care
Loud canned music = don't care
Live school band = do care
Corporate boxes = don't care
No bench seating = do care
What I am not seeing in the discussion is the reverse (building on campus) but making venue open to outside events (like MLS, concerts, and free events) to build the brand awareness for Vandy.
I think it is Iowa State or Kansas State who uses their stadium in the summer to show free movies which builds familiarity with the town folks to attending an event the school is playing in.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 11:12 am to Cheese Grits
The reverse option isn't going to get Nashville an MLS franchise. MLS is determined to have their teams playing in soccer-specific stadiums. Part of that is to prevent the awful visual of a mostly empty football stadium. Football stadiums are almost all at the 60k or above mark for capacity. MLS gets about 1/3 of that for most of its franchises. Also, MLS would want the Nashville MLS franchise to be the primary occupant who is making stadium decisions, not having to work with Vandy on scheduling and such.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 11:20 am to DoreonthePlains
quote:
The reverse option isn't going to get Nashville an MLS franchise.
Then just say no
Taxpayers going on the hook for all these single use sports buildings is just financial madness especially for anybody looking at a post baby boom sports world. High prices have driven the youth away in droves and they will bust the current sports bubble is a very speedy and downward spiral.
SEC should (and probably will) exceed any pro sports demand that only seats 30K for an outdoor live event. Preds have carved a niche, but in a much smaller venue.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:11 pm to Cheese Grits
Soccer is, however, gaining a lot of ground due to the increase in parents too nervous about concussions to let their kids play football. The youth soccer numbers are growing very rapidly, so the next 15 or so years could very well see a massive boost in soccer's popularity as those kids become adults. The NFL, MLB, and NBA are looking at bigger issues because of how ludicrous their TV rights contracts are with the value almost certain to peak then decrease soon. MLS's value is still on the upswing and should be for a while.
Posted on 5/5/17 at 2:31 pm to Cheese Grits
The perks do nothing for me if the stadium is off campus. When the home attendance plummets from the already struggling levels, the only ones that will be enjoying those perks will be all the fans of visiting SEC teams.
Posted on 5/5/17 at 3:20 pm to Vandyrone
quote:
The perks do nothing for me if the stadium is off campus.
:kige:
Which is why the MLS using VU facilities and not the reverse is the only possible option for the MLS folks.
Posted on 5/6/17 at 12:43 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Which is why the MLS using VU facilities and not the reverse is the only possible option for the MLS folks.
The opposite is more likely to be true. The MLS group has backing from the city to get their stadium done. However, if Ingram is dumping tons of money into MLS, he'll have less money for Vanderbilt athletics.
Posted on 5/6/17 at 4:47 am to DoreonthePlains
quote:
The opposite is more likely to be true.
Lets hope not.
Posted on 5/6/17 at 11:22 am to Cheese Grits
It just is. An MLS team will create more revenue for Ingram and other investors than putting money into Vanderbilt ever will. In the really long run, it may actually be beneficial if the crossover money (those part of the MLS group who are big Vandy donors) has a another lucrative flow of income. It could hamper short term projects like building or renovating the stadium.
Posted on 5/6/17 at 12:09 pm to DoreonthePlains
quote:
It could hamper short term projects like building or renovating the stadium.
My bigger issue is duplication of venues at limited revenues sites.
UK has broken ground on a new 50 million dollar baseball stadium with a minor league team in the same town. For the slight overlap of a month or two in an area where weather is an issue the smarter and more logical approach would be to combine construction and operation costs into a single venue and then try to get the most events there to recoup costs.
A potential idea would be to create a land lease on the current property with both groups owning the entity and a real desire to maximize the revenue on the land.
Land = owned by Vandy (non profit) so no tax issues on value of land for purposes of depreciation for a for profit venture such as MLS.
Improvements = with lease terms running concurrent with MLS investors desires of say 30, 40, 50, or more years.
Improvements are funded on 3 division based on ownership interests
Vanderbilt = football dates
MLS = soccer dates
Nashville = other dates not affected by the first two or public use events
Enables lower cost than each of the entities would pay on their own
Can pass tax advantages through to the for profit entity
Conserves land (1 site needed instead of 3)
Allows energy and green initiatives a for profit only entity would not spend
The upside of keeping the Vandy site is location to alternative pre game and post game activities. All the new construction going on right now really could enhance the walking aspect of pre and post event human traffic patterns.
Posted on 5/6/17 at 1:43 pm to Cheese Grits
But a mutual stadium plan will do one of two things that make it impractical. Either a) MLS will reject the bid because it won't be a soccer-specific stadium design or b) Vanderbilt football will be playing in a stadium with 20-25 thousand seats. The chances of even having a 30k seat-stadium built for MLS is incredibly small because MLS despises the visual that creates with so many empty seats. So even at a capacity which Vanderbilt, for all its lack of fan support, can already sell out, MLS will almost reject the proposal. Conversely, even if MLS approves a capacity of 30k, the SEC would likely step in and pressure/force Vandy to not play in such a small stadium. It would be great if there was a way for both parties to occupy the same stadium in a way that works for everyone, but it's just not going to happen.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 9:46 am to DoreonthePlains
Simple solution would be to built the bigger venue but only sell 1 side for the MLS games. Not a perfect solution but a solution. Another possibility would be a 2 tier stadium where you could pull black curtains to cut out the view of the upper seats like they do at many basketball venues.
The bigger issues in these discussions is the politics tho. Usually when a site is in play the folks who benefit the most financially are motivated to inject their will on the political system for personal gain. Interesting that the Public Choice Theory was born in nearby Murfreesboro. Clearly the end payers (the citizens and taxpayers) will have the least input in how their money is spent.
The bigger issues in these discussions is the politics tho. Usually when a site is in play the folks who benefit the most financially are motivated to inject their will on the political system for personal gain. Interesting that the Public Choice Theory was born in nearby Murfreesboro. Clearly the end payers (the citizens and taxpayers) will have the least input in how their money is spent.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 12:34 pm to Cheese Grits
I definitely agree that your solutions make sense from a facility use standpoint, BUT the city is competing with 12 other cities for 4 MLS spots. The MLS proposal will have to be damn near perfect, or Nashville won't have a reason to build a stadium for soccer (although Barry has talked about building one for the USL club if the MLS bid falls through).
As for financing issues, no details about who will pay what percentage have come out. However, with the Nashville Mayor so on-board, I have to think a plan has been proposed that is mostly privately funded.
Grits, I think the real problem here is that you are arguing from a "what would be a good compromise and most efficient" when the real issue first and foremost is winning an MLS bid. Whatever happens with Vanderbilt football is secondary to that issue IF there is any sort of stadium sharing going to happen.
As for financing issues, no details about who will pay what percentage have come out. However, with the Nashville Mayor so on-board, I have to think a plan has been proposed that is mostly privately funded.
Grits, I think the real problem here is that you are arguing from a "what would be a good compromise and most efficient" when the real issue first and foremost is winning an MLS bid. Whatever happens with Vanderbilt football is secondary to that issue IF there is any sort of stadium sharing going to happen.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 3:44 pm to DoreonthePlains
quote:
the real issue first and foremost is winning an MLS bid.
I tend to agree except it usually means the real deal is how much the locals with influence can grease the skids to get the citizens to pay for something that will cost more than it should.
Here are the 12 cities
Saint Louis - will always be a baseball town
San Diego
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Detroit
Indianapolis
Nashville
Phoenix
Raleigh - Durham
Sacramento
San Antonio
Tampa - Saint Pete.
New team going into Bobby Dodd (Georgia Tech stadium) in Atlanta. If they ar valuing average franchises as around 200 million who would be funding Nashville?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News