Man City Owners Pondering Bid for NY II; Red Bull Having Second Thoughts?

True, but the comment was "having a player actually make City's roster" not "feed multiple players to City".

 

I just want the guy to reply. I hate when these guys run away after facts are presented.

 

Naming your BigSoccer account "Twix" was a huge mistake. Does anyone really take you seriously when your username is named after a candy bar?

And shouldn't that be Manchester United renaming themselves to Manchester Jack Links?
(Also, apostrophes aren't used to pluralize words.)

 

It's probably better for New York fans to have two clubs owned by Middle Eastern princes who want to spread positive vibes about their nations than to have their two clubs owned by something like Red Bull. The Marquez signing, for example seems much more geared to marketing their drink to Mexicans than winning trophies.

 

But half of these owners don't care about losing money.

Heck, Roman Abramovich just "lost" ... I mean, spent a billion on a yacht.



To those guys, a soccer team, is just another billion dollar yacht.

 

Red bull is named after an animal so I did the same with Jack Links. There actually is a beef jerky stick called a Sasquatch and it is really good.

And there is a difference between my username and the name of a soccer team that represents arguably one of the most important cities in the world. I just think New York deserves better. People want a team that they can identify with, something they can be proud of, especially in big world class cities. Plus, soccer generally has a tradition of not using overly silly names like in most American sports. Even if red bull wasn't associated with a drink, it would still be a very bad name by soccer standards (and even American sport standards).

 

Can we focus on making teams profitable accross the league. Though I am not a fan of revenue sharing, I definitely think teams need to be forced to only spend what they earn. And if that means a salary cap in the meantime, so be it. The reason Red Bull is being so defensive about its investment is because they've lost a ton of money on this stuff.

Isn't what you're suggesting the issue that killed the NASL?

 

Don't forget the mine clearing sub.

 

In some ways, NYRB (and going back to NY/NJ MetroStars) is (or has the potential to be) the mine clearing sub for NY2.

 

Romanticized bull***t.
New York wants one thing, and one thing only- a winner.

 

Fair enough...but there's a BIG difference between ManU at the time of Howard's signing and the money-is-no-object approach of ManCity. I can't think of a single player in MLS that would make their senior roster, much less the matchday squad. I bet the league would be over the moon if ManCity was actually looking to establish a club in NY that would actually send talent to the parent club; instead, we'd likely have to settle for a franchise that was intended to promote the City brand. Such a move could work and such a move could fail, but I'd be interested to know if the league would welcome such a move at this point in time, or if they'd rather focus on building a unique identity for the league with their little project.

 

Especially a winner they can watch on basic cable.

 

Donovan and Henry could/would legitimately and regularly be in the matchday squad for any club in England (or the world) in 2012, Man City included.

Agree with this.

But the "unique identity" of MLS will likely always be a "borrowed identity" in some sense, as that is how the league realistically has to operate as a business running a first-division soccer league in the US/Canada.

There very likely isn't going to be a team name or brand that is eventually chosen for MLS team20 that does not look to be a very "borrowed" or "recycled/repurposed/extended" brand and identity.

 

Screw that.

Americans want a winner they can watch for free OTA.

 

If MLS HQ has even an ounce of sense, they won't let Manchester City anywhere near the second NY franchise.

 

Agreed, but it is rather likely that the highest bidder who will contractually agree to the structure/confines of MLS's single-entity business will be the group that is awarded MLS's next team's operating rights.

 

I disagree with this line of thinking. The whole point of the NYC2 project is that Metro/RBNY hasn't been particularly successful on or off the field. The creation of a second franchise in Queens would give the league another chance to establish a more successful and high-profile brand in the New York metro area. This opportunity is valuable and will never come again. I think that the long-term benefits of having the right ownership group in place would far outweigh any losses incurred by leaving money on the table in the expansion fee bidding process. I think that the league will recognize this and I also think that league is not desperate enough to take money up front against their better judgement.

 

NY wants a winner....but with flair, stars and style.

Many in NY still don't see MLS as a worthy league even if they do the above.

Gonna be issues here for a while.

Need to get the huge South American fan base behind the team in Queens to have a real shot.

The Euro crowd is not to be counted on.

 

Agreed Zoidberg. MLS is within striking distance of competing within in the Americas, but it's always going to be harder to draw the fans who fill pubs to watch their various Champions League clubs. Luckily Queens has more fans of Atletico Nacional and Emelec than Arsenal and AC Milan so a decent product should be good enough to fill a stadium in Flushing.

 

I hope this isn't a post from 2006, but honestly, I wonder if Red Bull is well liked anywhere where they set up their carpetbagging operation. I live in Austria and follow the Austrian league closely, and I really don't get the feeling too many people here think they are all that positive for the league. They spend so much money on crap foreign players - as well as gobbling up domestic talent that often ends up on the bench or in the stands - that they completely distort the market. They haven't succeeded in qualifying for the Champions League a single time despite having several times the payroll of any other team in the league. This year they even got dumped out of CL qualifying by an amateur team from Luxembourg. Their home attendance is lousy, and their traveling attendance is even worse. And they average about two-thirds of a head coach each season (number pulled out of my posterior for hyperbolic effect, but I'm probably not too far off). Just a sorry situation all around.

Maybe it's different in Jersey because they the team they erased, Stalin-esque, from the history books wasn't a storied franchise. And because they did build a really nice, expensive stadium and succeeded in signing bigger stars than Salzburg ever could. But I get the feeling they are very self-serving and not particularly concerned with the overall development of any of the leagues they compete in.

 

If this is true, Garber is happy. Of course the BoG won't accept this Man City bid; it and the Glazer group will only be used as bait in case the Cosmos group tries to haggle on the eventual price that they will pay. And yes, the other bidders can and likely will get a shot at taking over Red Bull (if that section of the article is also true, but its unsourced and could easily have ripped comments off Metrofanatic as justification). And again, the BoG won't accept the Man City bid there either. They are sick and tired of foreign absentee ownership.

 

Why wouldn't the BoG accept the Man City bid? If the Man City ownership group thinks that MLS is worthy, the BoG would be salivating at the increase in their franchise values if other foreign groups think likewise.

 

If it ends up being Man City USA a la Chivas USA, will franchise values really go up?