Today, all MLS fans are from Atlanta! I will prove where I am not from by correcting your "to" to "too." (Little words are important, too.)
Do they have a name yet? Its not too late to call it 'The Georgia Howl' Such a lovely bit of historical sentiment.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...r-names-atlanta-22nd-franchise-set-2017-debut So, send in your suggestion.
Thanks for that. I was beginning to wonder if everybody down there was clueless. I have to disagree with one thing though; there are indeed some people who were offended.
The point (beyond the care that was involved with actually extending the welcome) was to offend. That's what makes a joke/insult a good joke/insult. It gets a response. (Complaining about any portion of the response kinda takes away from the joke/insult, imo.)
I need to do more it seems... ....Columbus is the gum on the bottom of Cleveland's shoe.... .....and Atlanta is filled with a bunch of ignorant rednecks.
Doesn't Seattle's co-owner use one of his own products for the jersey sponsor? Seattle invented using their soccer team to pitch their own company/product.
I managed to get through about half the thread so apologies if this has been mentioned. From what I have read much of the argument over whether this will be a successful franchise revolves around them sharing an NFL stadium (and playing on turf?). The naysayers point to Gillette and RFK while the counter argument points to BC place and Century link but either way they seem concentrate on the attendance disparity rather than the why which is what this is really all about. The disasters that are Gillette and RFK are in fact what led indirectly to the success of BC place and Century link because it is what necessitated the strategy of building SSS's and without that strategy being a success, putting MLS back on an up curve, expansion into other NFL stadia for franchises would of likely been a disaster too. So the question for me is whether MLS has turned the corner to such an extent it can now march confidently into new markets utilising NFL or even MLB stadia and not suffer any of the old negative consequences - has the popularity of soccer and MLS now reached the point that the strategy of building SSS's has now become obsolete? The evidence so far is no, yes and maybe - just wanted to clear that up. NBCS article Ahead of Atlanta’s expected MLS entry, are NFL stadium shares the way to go? As a fan of soccer and MLS the idea of adding more franchises playing second fiddle to other sports on substandard surfaces is not appealing but MLS priorities still lie with expanding the product rather than improving it as a spectacle at this time though granted those things are not mutually exclusive. The problem with that for me is that even if soccer becomes a raging success in NFL stadiums playing on second rate surfaces in the future that will make it even less likely we see all franchises move to their own soccer specific stadia with quality grass surfaces. I guess it is a case of get used to it and hope it goes well for the sake of the league.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread that was offended. Maybe you are seeing it elsewhere. I simply pointed out how it was funny that for pages and pages people were saying that Atlanta/the south was incapable of not using Civil War theme because they are all racist rednecks. Then Ohio was the first to bring Civil War into it. If it had been the other way around people would have cried in the streets and called for the arrest and death penalty for all the civil warmongering rednecks...Ok maybe I am exaggerating a little. Only a little though.
The lesson is that each market is different, and MLS will try to best grow their business as they can and will accept "different conditions" in places like Orlando, NYC, Atlanta and Miami (and wherever is next). That has always been the case. There is no "set mold" for "good/best" expansion, really. And of Orlando, NYC, Atlanta and Miami (if that last one actually happens), only Atlanta looks to be starting up on a fake field. (Not that NYCFC's use of a covered over dirt infield is an ideal solution -- but it is what it is, and the hope/plan there is to try to have a new soccer stadium, very likely with grass, by 2018.) I think the league's business success will lead to better everything, include the eventual (but likely not complete) phasing out of artificial surfaces. It will take time. Toronto was able to convert the CSA's Exhibition Place stadium (built for heavy use during the 2007 U20 World Cup) to grass after establishing/knowing TFC's fanbase and wanting to show improvement/dedication by bringing in a natural surface. Other teams transitioned from temp venues into homes with grass. And it certainly took more time in places like Harrison than in Houston or Sandy. But it always took time. Will the Sounders always play in the Seahawks Stadium (and/or on a synthetic field)? Will the Whitecaps always be at BC as a shared tenant with the CFL's Lions? Shared stadiums are going to be a reality in some (or even "too many") markets. But as the league matures and more teams get more/total control over "their own" venues, then more and more of the league matches will be played on natural surfaces (I would think/hope). Not that there won't be hold-outs and not that there aren't owners (in say Portland and NE, and now Atlanta, too) who will see no real reason or availability to get their MLS team playing on grass.
Naturally each market is different but my point is that the real factor for whether MLS has been successful in a NFL stadium is built upon the success and popularity of MLS and soccer as a whole when the franchise moved in. It is not coincidence for me that old franchises with the stale smell of MLS 1.0 such as DCU and NER are struggling while new franchises such as Vancouver and Seattle are not. Not so much the market or the NFL stadia that are deciding factors but the state of MLS and soccer. That may seem obvious but it is point that seems to have got lost in here and if we take it at face value it means that Atlanta will be a success (within the parameters of market variability) The same goes for my point that if MLS franchises continue to be successful in NFL stadia and/or playing on artificial surfaces then that success ironically means we are less likely to see them switch to SSS's and/or natural surfaces.
The evidence is clear: Sherman was a war criminal, the logo three construction workers are all bigots and Crew Cat is a murderer.
1. New England and DC were successful in NFL stadiums when they moved in. Check out their attendance the first several years. 2. Soccer was not particularly successful in Seattle prior to joining MLS. They averaged around 3,000 fans in the A-league and USL-1.
I think that "NFL stadia" are changing, too. Even the biggest venues (in many markets) are now being built (or re-modeled) for (better) multi-purpose use and with "soccer in mind" in part. That is true in Seattle and in Atlanta and in Vancouver. These stadiums will "better meet" MLS' needs (and FIFA's, hopefully at some point) when compared to what Gillette Stadium, or Giants Stadium or Rice-Eccels Stadium or Arrowhead or even Ohio Stadium offer(ed) to local MLS teams (regardless of the specific artificial turf vs grass concerns). I disagree. Teams (or more of them, generally speaking), as they become more successful businesses, will eventually be able to control their venue. It won't happen in every market. But I do think at some point this new Atlanta team very well could get its own (new) place to play (on grass), and the same could even happen in Seattle or Vancouver (or NE or Portland).