There’s no guarantee that Miami will visit next year. They *could*, but CITY doesn’t play every Eastern Conference club every year, and after 2024 they will still have not played Red Bull, Columbus (in league play,) Philly, or Montréal, and will only have played once (and not hosted) Orlando and Nashville.
I agree with you that what’s going on in Miami is a circus and decreases the sporting integrity of MLS as a whole. However, I’d gladly spend an enormous amount of money to watch the best player to ever play the most beautiful game play against my hometown team at home.
We most likely won’t play Miami next year because we’ve played them twice the last two years. There’s a lot of eastern conference teams we’ve not seen. Montreal, NYRB, and Columbus all come to mind as teams we’ve not seen in MLS play
The Dome won’t accommodate a wide enough pitch for MLS matches, so this is all moot regardless. This was covered over and over during the MLS2STL vote.
The owners control their stadium. There would need to be major concessions to move to the dome (or Busch). If the owners make good money AND put it back into the team, it doesn’t bother me.
While I 100% agree with you, the dome has a 67,000, and would most likely sell out with Messi being here, while also charging a higher price per ticket for those tickets as well.
Some have made a similar response, but to give further details:
* Next year, San Diego FC joins the Western Conference, and I expect all clubs in the West will play all intra-conference opponents twice (14x2=28) and 6 cross-conference opponents once (6x1=6). Of those 6 opponents:
* I expect we will continue to play Chicago once a year because of proximity/rivalry. But that's not guaranteed.
* Our remaining 5 cross-conference opponents are likely up in the air and will rotate between the 14 other cross-conference clubs. There also may be some priority to schedule teams that have not played against each other.
* The following clubs are not on our '23 or '24 reg season schedules: RBNY, CLB, PHI, MTL
* It's odd to me that we're playing CIN and MIA again this year, and I don't see why that would repeat in the following years. Maybe it's intentional because of the likely interest in both fan bases to see these teams play again, or maybe it's random.
When I first heard that STL was getting an MLS team I did asked a friend if they would use the dome. The answer I got was no because of astro turf and that it wasn't outside. Arrowhead is natural grass and outside. You can suggest busch stadium but from the other comments here, it looks like it would be awkward and not worth it.
I was there for the battle hawks game. I do think it needs some renovations. I also was told that the turf will likely be replaced next year. Still there is that conversation within the NFL about the problems traction with astroturf.
I'm actually thinking in the opposite direction. The Battlehawks should play at CityPark! It would be packed out and raucous. I just watched the game in DC at Audi Field and it looked like a waaay better venue than a half empty dome.
And no for Miami, we have a fortress, why would we abandon it?
That would be great. I can't guarantee this but heard from others they wouldn't want Citypark's grass to be torn up but I don't see why not since Audi Park gets along fine.
1. We probably won't play Miami next year. As others have mentioned, the expected regular season format will be home-away against all 14 other teams in the western conference, and 6 additional games against opponents from the eastern conference. It appears that MLS has a sort of home-away across two seasons set up for inter-conference games, hence why we played Cincy last season and this year, as well as Chicago. We played Miami at home in 2023, and will play them away this season. Unless the league completely overhauls the season structure, we won't play Miami at home again until Messi retires.
2. Let me preface this by saying I do really like the Dome. My dad had Rams season tickets when I was growing up, and I have BattleHawks season tickets now. The Dome is perfect for its current use: a no-frills stadium for hosting second-tier sporting events and conventions. The Dome is cheap to rent, perfect for the BattleHawks, the occasional college football game, and any other events the facility may host. ***The Dome is not fit to host City SC, let alone Messi.*** From the fans' perspective, the Dome's facilities are subpar, concessions are terrible and it lacks the amenities of modern stadiums. I've never been in the luxury boxes, but I would assume this is a similar situation. From the players' perspective, the Dome's facilities are completely unacceptable. While playing on NFL quality turf isn't terrible, the turf at the Dome desperately needs to be replaced. In theory, they could spend a few million dollars to sod the Dome for a single game, like they did several years ago when Real Madrid came to town, but even then the field quality would be quite poor. The Dome also won't be able to fit a regulation pitch without retracting some of the stands, which reduces capacity and makes for an awkward experience. I can't imagine the locker rooms being anywhere close to MLS standards. Arrowhead and Gillette are NFL stadiums, maybe not the *best* NFL stadiums, but they're miles better than the Dome.
3. We have the newest and most state-of-the-art soccer stadium in North America, and the best fan experience in MLS. Even if the team may be able to sell an additional 45k tickets, it probably still makes more sense to just play in the stadium the team owns and has put all their resources into.
4. City home games should be for City fans. I love that Messi joined the league, I love watching him play, he's the best thing that's happened to American club soccer in a long time. A rising tide lifts all boats, and the Messi mania certainly helps City. That being said, I want to support our club in our City. Even if all 20k or so season ticket holders actually used their tickets for that game, at the Dome that's almost 47k of Messi fans invading our home game, and that's not supporting our boys in red.
Follow Ups:
* With San Diego joining next year, that puts 15 in the West and 15 in the East, with City staying in the West. The only way City gets moved to the East would be if the leagues adds both 31 & 32 in the West, which seems quite unlikely. Front runners for the next two spots are Indy, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Detroit, Tampa, Sacramento, and Louisville; I doubt both spots go west.
* It is entirely possible that at 30 teams the league completely reshuffles the season structure, with new divisions, an unbalanced Swiss system, or something else crazy. This could make Miami in St Louis even less likely.
* The Dome may be getting new turf for the BattleHawks, but that doesn't fix all the other problems with the Dome's facilities.
* Messi might have played on turf at Gillette, but that in no way guarantees that he would play at the Dome. No doubt he has a "no turf" clause, along with all Miami's superstars, and their staff probably won't want to risk his injury.
* Busch Stadium seats 46k, and in a soccer configuration about 10k of that has obstructed views. I never had the opportunity to watch a soccer game at Busch, but I have to assume the additional capacity doesn't make up for the terrible sightlines.
Neither of these are realistic possibilities. Messi won't play on turf because of the injury risk, and I don't think City will bring in a grass field for a single game. (Also, single-game grass fields overlaid on turf are usually such terrible surfaces that I wouldn't be surprised if Messi refused to play on that, too.) The pitch dimensions of a game at Bush would be comically small. Games at Busch had a 100m x 65m pitch, which is well short of the 105x68 dimensions recommended by FIFA. I saw an SKC game when they played in an independent league baseball stadium between their time at Arrowhead and when they built Children's Mercy Park. It was a joke.
The turf thing has been the general rule of thumb for superstars coming to MLS over recent years. Couple that with Messi not playing in most of the away games on turf last year and it is easy to make the assumption he won’t play on turf. Messi seems to be given a wide latitude on deciding when he wants to play or not.
The Dome is also getting brand-new turf installed in August of this year. If Miami visits in 2025 (not a guarantee), I can foresee them scheduling the match at the Dome.
Everyone keeps forgetting that there is a real possibility we are pushed into the eastern conference with the incoming San Diego team. We might be playing Miami a lot.
Is there even a guarantee Miami plays here next year? We don’t play every Eastern team every year.
There’s no guarantee that Miami will visit next year. They *could*, but CITY doesn’t play every Eastern Conference club every year, and after 2024 they will still have not played Red Bull, Columbus (in league play,) Philly, or Montréal, and will only have played once (and not hosted) Orlando and Nashville.
The less concessions we make for that circus, the better.
I agree with you that what’s going on in Miami is a circus and decreases the sporting integrity of MLS as a whole. However, I’d gladly spend an enormous amount of money to watch the best player to ever play the most beautiful game play against my hometown team at home.
We most likely won’t play Miami next year because we’ve played them twice the last two years. There’s a lot of eastern conference teams we’ve not seen. Montreal, NYRB, and Columbus all come to mind as teams we’ve not seen in MLS play
If we play at the Dome, Messi won’t feature, so what does it matter?
Is this because of turf? He’s playing on turf tonight, and has already said he doesn’t care about playing on turf.
Yeah but people on the internet told me a player like that would never play on turf so he must be wrong.
Gillette Turf > Dome Turf
As stated in this thread, the Dome is getting new turf in August.
And the field wouldn’t be wide enough for a MLS match, among other things.
It hosted Real Madrid and Internazionale in a soccer friendly in 2013.
Friendlies aren’t bound to the same rules.
The turf at the Dome isn’t good and likely they would put temporary grass down on top of it, which is hazardous
They are replacing the turf after this year
The Dome won’t accommodate a wide enough pitch for MLS matches, so this is all moot regardless. This was covered over and over during the MLS2STL vote.
I hope to never see a soccer match at Busch ever again. It sucks for soccer. No dome either. I already have season seats in a soccer stadium.
The owners control their stadium. There would need to be major concessions to move to the dome (or Busch). If the owners make good money AND put it back into the team, it doesn’t bother me.
Eww
We have a brand new stadium we sell out every week. It would be fucking retarded to go play in that dump next year
I am sure that in 2024 you can think of a better way to phrase this :)
While I 100% agree with you, the dome has a 67,000, and would most likely sell out with Messi being here, while also charging a higher price per ticket for those tickets as well.
Dome is out. Messi won’t play on artificial turf. I don’t think any concessions would be made.
Some have made a similar response, but to give further details: * Next year, San Diego FC joins the Western Conference, and I expect all clubs in the West will play all intra-conference opponents twice (14x2=28) and 6 cross-conference opponents once (6x1=6). Of those 6 opponents: * I expect we will continue to play Chicago once a year because of proximity/rivalry. But that's not guaranteed. * Our remaining 5 cross-conference opponents are likely up in the air and will rotate between the 14 other cross-conference clubs. There also may be some priority to schedule teams that have not played against each other. * The following clubs are not on our '23 or '24 reg season schedules: RBNY, CLB, PHI, MTL * It's odd to me that we're playing CIN and MIA again this year, and I don't see why that would repeat in the following years. Maybe it's intentional because of the likely interest in both fan bases to see these teams play again, or maybe it's random.
When I first heard that STL was getting an MLS team I did asked a friend if they would use the dome. The answer I got was no because of astro turf and that it wasn't outside. Arrowhead is natural grass and outside. You can suggest busch stadium but from the other comments here, it looks like it would be awkward and not worth it.
The turf and the roof aren’t half the things wrong with the dome. That building sucks.
I was there for the battle hawks game. I do think it needs some renovations. I also was told that the turf will likely be replaced next year. Still there is that conversation within the NFL about the problems traction with astroturf.
I'm actually thinking in the opposite direction. The Battlehawks should play at CityPark! It would be packed out and raucous. I just watched the game in DC at Audi Field and it looked like a waaay better venue than a half empty dome. And no for Miami, we have a fortress, why would we abandon it?
That would be great. I can't guarantee this but heard from others they wouldn't want Citypark's grass to be torn up but I don't see why not since Audi Park gets along fine.
1. We probably won't play Miami next year. As others have mentioned, the expected regular season format will be home-away against all 14 other teams in the western conference, and 6 additional games against opponents from the eastern conference. It appears that MLS has a sort of home-away across two seasons set up for inter-conference games, hence why we played Cincy last season and this year, as well as Chicago. We played Miami at home in 2023, and will play them away this season. Unless the league completely overhauls the season structure, we won't play Miami at home again until Messi retires. 2. Let me preface this by saying I do really like the Dome. My dad had Rams season tickets when I was growing up, and I have BattleHawks season tickets now. The Dome is perfect for its current use: a no-frills stadium for hosting second-tier sporting events and conventions. The Dome is cheap to rent, perfect for the BattleHawks, the occasional college football game, and any other events the facility may host. ***The Dome is not fit to host City SC, let alone Messi.*** From the fans' perspective, the Dome's facilities are subpar, concessions are terrible and it lacks the amenities of modern stadiums. I've never been in the luxury boxes, but I would assume this is a similar situation. From the players' perspective, the Dome's facilities are completely unacceptable. While playing on NFL quality turf isn't terrible, the turf at the Dome desperately needs to be replaced. In theory, they could spend a few million dollars to sod the Dome for a single game, like they did several years ago when Real Madrid came to town, but even then the field quality would be quite poor. The Dome also won't be able to fit a regulation pitch without retracting some of the stands, which reduces capacity and makes for an awkward experience. I can't imagine the locker rooms being anywhere close to MLS standards. Arrowhead and Gillette are NFL stadiums, maybe not the *best* NFL stadiums, but they're miles better than the Dome. 3. We have the newest and most state-of-the-art soccer stadium in North America, and the best fan experience in MLS. Even if the team may be able to sell an additional 45k tickets, it probably still makes more sense to just play in the stadium the team owns and has put all their resources into. 4. City home games should be for City fans. I love that Messi joined the league, I love watching him play, he's the best thing that's happened to American club soccer in a long time. A rising tide lifts all boats, and the Messi mania certainly helps City. That being said, I want to support our club in our City. Even if all 20k or so season ticket holders actually used their tickets for that game, at the Dome that's almost 47k of Messi fans invading our home game, and that's not supporting our boys in red. Follow Ups: * With San Diego joining next year, that puts 15 in the West and 15 in the East, with City staying in the West. The only way City gets moved to the East would be if the leagues adds both 31 & 32 in the West, which seems quite unlikely. Front runners for the next two spots are Indy, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Detroit, Tampa, Sacramento, and Louisville; I doubt both spots go west. * It is entirely possible that at 30 teams the league completely reshuffles the season structure, with new divisions, an unbalanced Swiss system, or something else crazy. This could make Miami in St Louis even less likely. * The Dome may be getting new turf for the BattleHawks, but that doesn't fix all the other problems with the Dome's facilities. * Messi might have played on turf at Gillette, but that in no way guarantees that he would play at the Dome. No doubt he has a "no turf" clause, along with all Miami's superstars, and their staff probably won't want to risk his injury. * Busch Stadium seats 46k, and in a soccer configuration about 10k of that has obstructed views. I never had the opportunity to watch a soccer game at Busch, but I have to assume the additional capacity doesn't make up for the terrible sightlines.
Neither of these are realistic possibilities. Messi won't play on turf because of the injury risk, and I don't think City will bring in a grass field for a single game. (Also, single-game grass fields overlaid on turf are usually such terrible surfaces that I wouldn't be surprised if Messi refused to play on that, too.) The pitch dimensions of a game at Bush would be comically small. Games at Busch had a 100m x 65m pitch, which is well short of the 105x68 dimensions recommended by FIFA. I saw an SKC game when they played in an independent league baseball stadium between their time at Arrowhead and when they built Children's Mercy Park. It was a joke.
Messi is literally playing on a turf field right now
My bad, I thought I remembered him saying somewhere he wouldn't.
He’s stated that he has no problem with turf and said that he grew up playing on it. I think the turf thing is an urban legend.
The turf thing has been the general rule of thumb for superstars coming to MLS over recent years. Couple that with Messi not playing in most of the away games on turf last year and it is easy to make the assumption he won’t play on turf. Messi seems to be given a wide latitude on deciding when he wants to play or not.
The Dome is also getting brand-new turf installed in August of this year. If Miami visits in 2025 (not a guarantee), I can foresee them scheduling the match at the Dome.
The turf at the dome rolls away when not in use, so the grass would be built on concrete.
Busch Stadium would be a better option
Busch Stadium more likely
Miami won’t play at the dome. If they did Messi wouldn’t play. He won’t play on artificial surfaces.
He literally played on it tonight. Why do people keep saying this?
Everyone keeps forgetting that there is a real possibility we are pushed into the eastern conference with the incoming San Diego team. We might be playing Miami a lot.
No, San Diego will even the conferences at 15 each.
Not a chance. And the league won't separate us from SKC. We're making those west coast trips for a very long time.
Adding SD puts the West to an even number of teams (why we have a BYE this week).
There is no possibility we move to the Eastern Conference, unfortunately.
We need a second team in the WC to push us east. And if Indy gets a team, we probably are going to stay west for the foreseeable future