Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Cowboy Junky

Are there any rumblings in Albuquerque or San Diego about MLS expansion?

Recommended Posts

Garber already said the winter schedule is not a matter of if but when. As soon as he has enough southern teams to schedule games at during the winter, it's a go. MLS can compete with spring training baseball, hockey, and basketball. It certainly can more then it can compete with the NFL and college football. In addition, it makes it possible for MLS to partner with European soccer teams for loans, and actually be competitive in the transfer market. Until we play a winter schedule the MLS is always going to be considered a second rate league.

The southwest is important because of the demographics. There is a huge population of hispanic americans in the southwest and at some point the MLS is going to try and bring them into the league.

That Garber quote was a misquote from an article. What's funny is the Scandinavian countries play a more summer oriented league because they have to deal with more of the issues that we do and no one accuses them of corrupting the worlds game. I understand your point on transfers, but it's just not that big a deal in my opinion. We just pick up players on their off season in June/July.

And the hispanic market is overplayed. If than was an important sign, then San Antonio, San Diego, Albuquerque, Miami, and Phoenix would already have teams. Instead they placed teams in Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Portland and Montreal with those being highly supported. Studies have shown the 18-34 demographic is much more important than Hispanic heritage. Hispanics (esp from Mexico) already have teams they follow from Mexico.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow the MLS all that closely, but I wonder whether they are expanding too rapidly for their own good. Average attendance has stagnated, even slightly declined, last season and a case could be made that the same is true for the overall quality of play.

 

However as I said I don't follow the MLS closely so I am wondering: Do you guys really think that this rapid expansion is smart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've  never been to a soccer only stadium for MLS.  What makes them less expensive?

 

size

 

don't need a bunch of nancy press and vip boxes. soccer is a continuous game so concession needs are lessened

 

really just size tho

 

most new soccer stadiums are built for 100-130 million

 

most new football stadiums in the same or similar cities are 600 million + 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow the MLS all that closely, but I wonder whether they are expanding too rapidly for their own good. Average attendance has stagnated, even slightly declined, last season and a case could be made that the same is true for the overall quality of play.

 

However as I said I don't follow the MLS closely so I am wondering: Do you guys really think that this rapid expansion is smart?

 

it's not. it's partly what killed the nasl

 

there's a lot more to it than just expansion, you have to have the local and national talent to field competitive teams and keep regions interested. it's getting there. it's a long process but things are moving in the right direction. even if attendance isn't better than it was 3 years ago or whatever, all you have to do is watch a game in portland or seattle or any sold out stadium to realize the interest is there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 18,000. The current MLS expansion model requires certain things:

 

1. Soccer specific stadiums

2. Wealthy owners

3. Strong local support

 

The majority of MLS profit comes from ticket sales and attendance. That's why they're requiring the owners to have their own stadiums.

 

 

Not sure that is completely accurate. StubHub Center (formerly Home Depot Center) home of the Galaxy and Chivas USA is owned by CSU, Dominguez Hills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

That Garber quote was a misquote from an article. What's funny is the Scandinavian countries play a more summer oriented league because they have to deal with more of the issues that we do and no one accuses them of corrupting the worlds game. I understand your point on transfers, but it's just not that big a deal in my opinion. We just pick up players on their off season in June/July.

And the hispanic market is overplayed. If than was an important sign, then San Antonio, San Diego, Albuquerque, Miami, and Phoenix would already have teams. Instead they placed teams in Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Portland and Montreal with those being highly supported. Studies have shown the 18-34 demographic is much more important than Hispanic heritage. Hispanics (esp from Mexico) already have teams they follow from Mexico.

 

I listened to an interview recently where Garber confirmed that the winter schedule is on the way. He wanted to do it this year but doesn't have enough warm weather teams. It's coming. It's going to piss off a lot of American sports fans because they don't understand why it's important that the Colorado Rapids and Arsenal can use their partnership for player development, player exchange...Still, it's critical that we do this. Those Scandinavian leagues do play schedules similar to ours but they also have quality not much better then ours. All the big leagues play a winter schedule and the MLS aspires to be more like Serie A, Premierleague, Bundesliga, and La Ligue then they do the league in Norway.

 

The hispanic market is key to the future of the US team. We have to have hispanic players on our roster if we have any chance of being competitive world wide. Right now we're winning our fair share, but it could be better. Currently, the MLS is a feeder league to MX. We send most of our best hispanic players to league MX when they outgrow MLS. I think the long term plan is to flip that. We want to be able to cherry pick the Mexican league. In addition, if MLS ever wants to be considered on par with other American sports leagues, they have to add viewers. MLS ratings is the most pathetic thing holding MLS growth back. In order to get those viewers, they have to add interest in hispanic markets as hispanics make up the majority of soccer watcing fans in the U.S. It's key to the MLS success to appeal to a hispanic market, because white America isn't watching soccer on t.v. unless it's the prem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Garber quote was a misquote from an article. What's funny is the Scandinavian countries play a more summer oriented league because they have to deal with more of the issues that we do and no one accuses them of corrupting the worlds game. I understand your point on transfers, but it's just not that big a deal in my opinion. We just pick up players on their off season in June/July.

And the hispanic market is overplayed. If than was an important sign, then San Antonio, San Diego, Albuquerque, Miami, and Phoenix would already have teams1. Instead they placed teams in Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Portland and Montreal with those being highly supported. Studies have shown the 18-34 demographic is much more important than Hispanic heritage. Hispanics (esp from Mexico) already have teams they follow from Mexico.2

 

 

1. There is truth to that when you look at the heavy concentration of soccer teams in the metro and New England area.

2. That's because until very recently, they hadn't had much pro US futbol to follow. Heck, I know more that follow Euro (UK and Spanish) than Mexican or US futbol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure that is completely accurate. StubHub Center (formerly Home Depot Center) home of the Galaxy and Chivas USA is owned by CSU, Dominguez Hills.

Maybe primary tenant is a better phrase. Many NFL, NBA, NHL teams and so on don't necessarily own their building, but they more or less do through low rent, getting the larger share of concessions, parking, and so on. That's basically what the MLS wants. At the beginning, they played in NFL stadium that wanted high rent and took the concession, parking and other game day sales money. When they are the primary tenant, they get to keep those sales more or less... Or at least more of them. They get more power over their revenue streams.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not. it's partly what killed the nasl

 

there's a lot more to it than just expansion, you have to have the local and national talent to field competitive teams and keep regions interested. it's getting there. it's a long process but things are moving in the right direction. even if attendance isn't better than it was 3 years ago or whatever, all you have to do is watch a game in portland or seattle or any sold out stadium to realize the interest is there. 

 

No question the interest is there and I do believe overall soccer in the US is growing nicely. I am wondering over exactly the same points that you mentioned: Talent and Interest

 

For instance one possible red flag I see is that quite a few of the older MLS teams actually seem to have declining (or stagnating) attendance figures for years. Most of the increase in attendance comes from the new teams and may be more related to the novelty factor than to sustainable growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure that is completely accurate. StubHub Center (formerly Home Depot Center) home of the Galaxy and Chivas USA is owned by CSU, Dominguez Hills.

 

I believe these regulations apply for new expansion teams and was only adopted a couple of years ago. Galaxy and Chivas obviously have been around longer then that rule so it doesn't apply to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

No question the interest is there and I do believe overall soccer in the US is growing nicely. I am wondering over exactly the same points that you mentioned: Talent and Interest

 

For instance one possible red flag I see is that quite a few of the older MLS teams actually seem to have declining (or stagnating) attendance figures for years. Most of the increase in attendance comes from the new teams and may be more related to the novelty factor than to sustainable growth.

 

That's why the MLS expansion criteria have morphed to what they are today.

 

1. Ownership of a soccer specific stadium

2. Proven success in that market

3. Wealthy owners that are committed to building MLS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure that is completely accurate. StubHub Center (formerly Home Depot Center) home of the Galaxy and Chivas USA is owned by CSU, Dominguez Hills.

 

 

It's on the campus but its owned and operated by AEG (owners of the Galaxy).  Toyota Park (home of the Chicago Fire) is owned by the Village of Bridgeview but Andell Holdings (owner of the Fire) is the operator and controls the revenue streams.  That's the model that has allowed MLS to be reasonably successful. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

MLS expansion has been much slower and more deliberate than NASL.  NASL put a team in any town that could put up a few bucks for an expansion fee.  They were at 24 teams in less than a decade of existence.  MLS wont reach that number until almost 25 years in.  And because of the insistence on soccer-specific stadiums, MLS teams have control of revenue streams that the NASL never could.  And the single-entity concept and salary cap, socialistic thought they may be, has levelled things and prevented the spending (in an effort to match the Cosmos) that truly killed the NASL

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9063_ori_rio_tinto_stadium.jpg

 

Real Salt Lake's Stadium..........south of SLC, but a nice stadium

 

Very nice design from an aesthetical point of view. Not so sure about sight lines and atmosphere because of the slowly rising seating in the lower bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why the MLS expansion criteria have morphed to what they are today.

 

1. Ownership of a soccer specific stadium

2. Proven success in that market

3. Wealthy owners that are committed to building MLS

 

#2 is a bit of a head scratcher to me for two reasons:

 

1) How do show "proven success" in an expansion market?

2) Wouldn't that preclude expansion into Miami or even Florida in general? After all 2 Florida franchise failed already. Granted that was 10 years ago and MLS would be stupid not to think about the Florida market, but still if they really want to follow that rule...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2 is a bit of a head scratcher to me for two reasons:

 

1) How do show "proven success" in an expansion market?

2) Wouldn't that preclude expansion into Miami or even Florida in general? After all 2 Florida franchise failed already. Granted that was 10 years ago and MLS would be stupid not to think about the Florida market, but still if they really want to follow that rule...

 

 

Miami Fusion FC failed because of a lousy location and indifferent and/or underfunded ownership, and the league to its credit wasnt afraid to correct that mistake..  The new ownership group - when its official - will have rectified that.  Tampa Bay didn't so much fail as it was a victim of circumstances - its was owned by the league and they were unable to find a suitable buyer for it, and the league at the time was not stable enough to carry it until they could.  Tampa has that 'proven success' mentioned - the NASL Rowdies were a big draw and the Mutiny was also reasonably success in that regard.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprise if Tijuana Xolos becomes the first pro Mexican team to join a pro US league. I notice more Xolos apparel around L.A. that Galaxy or Chivas USA. They have a huge following in SoCal.

No reason why they would. Mexican Primera is several notches above MLS in terms of skill and they definitely get paid more in Mexico. Chivas already set up a subsidiary and it hasn't went well.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to an interview recently where Garber confirmed that the winter schedule is on the way. He wanted to do it this year but doesn't have enough warm weather teams. It's coming. It's going to piss off a lot of American sports fans because they don't understand why it's important that the Colorado Rapids and Arsenal can use their partnership for player development, player exchange...Still, it's critical that we do this. Those Scandinavian leagues do play schedules similar to ours but they also have quality not much better then ours. All the big leagues play a winter schedule and the MLS aspires to be more like Serie A, Premierleague, Bundesliga, and La Ligue then they do the league in Norway.

 

The hispanic market is key to the future of the US team. We have to have hispanic players on our roster if we have any chance of being competitive world wide. Right now we're winning our fair share, but it could be better. Currently, the MLS is a feeder league to MX. We send most of our best hispanic players to league MX when they outgrow MLS. I think the long term plan is to flip that. We want to be able to cherry pick the Mexican league. In addition, if MLS ever wants to be considered on par with other American sports leagues, they have to add viewers. MLS ratings is the most pathetic thing holding MLS growth back. In order to get those viewers, they have to add interest in hispanic markets as hispanics make up the majority of soccer watcing fans in the U.S. It's key to the MLS success to appeal to a hispanic market, because white America isn't watching soccer on t.v. unless it's the prem.

Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, Premiership and so on all have over a hundred years of history behind them. I know that the Premier and Bundesliga are newer inventions, but there has been top teir leagues played in those countries forever. They've have time to build their leagues and create a culture which we don't have here. It's being working on. It's why the NBA, NFL, and MLB are the best leagues in the world. The games have been played here by huge amounts of people for longer than anyone else. It takes time.

Again, it's the same Liga MX. its older, has a larger amount involvement overall and there's more money in it. People go to Liga MX because they can make more money. Things are coming around in the US. Money is coming. Sponsors are increasing. The TV package is about to triple. Involvement past grade school is increasing.

Moving to the fall- spring schedule is going to strip away the sponsors that would rather spend on the NBA, NFL, NHL, and college. At least now, it's MLS or baseball. some of the issues with TV viewers is the changing TV time slots. MLS needs a permanent time slot like Thursday night NBA, Sunday football or MNF. If they move Fall-Spring that wipes of the entire first half of the season with college football controlling Saturdays and NFL Sunday's. March madness takes over March and early April when MLS Playoff positioning would be happening. I'm a big soccer fan, but it would severely cut into my watching.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question the interest is there and I do believe overall soccer in the US is growing nicely. I am wondering over exactly the same points that you mentioned: Talent and Interest

 

For instance one possible red flag I see is that quite a few of the older MLS teams actually seem to have declining (or stagnating) attendance figures for years. Most of the increase in attendance comes from the new teams and may be more related to the novelty factor than to sustainable growth.

Some of the issues are poorly placed Stadiums. While FC Dallas did get a SSS, they built it way out in frisco. MLS learned from that and now want their stadiums in "urban cores". DC Unitd needs (and is getting) a new stadium so the gameday experience has suffered. San Jose is in a stadium that seats only 14000?, while their new stadium is being built. New England revolution are shoehorned in the Patriots stadium and it's not fun or easy to get to for soccer fans(where the interest is less than the NFL).

Sporting KC is an example of having terrible stadium issues and once they resolved those, things improved greatly.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...