Because various articles on the matter have quoted ownership saying they are interested in expanding and making the "City" brand a worldwide force. So it's easy mentally to just identify the expansion NY franchise as Man City Jr. Man City existed long before the arab sheikh bought them--in many ways it is viewed by the fans as being the team's brand not the owner's. You bring up an interesting point though--i wonder how many of the people actually involved in the Man City front office would be involved in getting NY City FC off the ground. As far as team brands go it's Chivas USA all over again except that this experiment will have the "prestige" of a Euro brand attached to it rather than a Liga MX one. Whether ownership/front office will prove to be just as incompetent is a different question altogether--that's on a "wait and see" mode right now. All of this, of course, hangs on the assumption that the Man City group will win the bid for NYC #2. Who's to say that the Paris St Germain group won't win the bid??
And frankly, with the current league setup, a cash-splasher is just not any guarantor of a powerful team. So that doesn't bother me.
Well, Man City just trashed the rumors anyways. So while their ownership may still be seeking an MLS franchise, the City brand does not appear to be crossing the Atlantic.
The article you're just talking about--fresh this morning. http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/...rman-rejects-mls-franchise-speculation-121512 The interesting part of that article: In other words, the implication is that it was indeed under consideration for a while but then after further internal talks they decided to not go for it---quite possibly because the club is in such financial hot water as it is or perhaps the fear that it would place a further strain on an already harried club. Oh well--NY City FC was a nice flirtation while it lasted---at least they made up their mind a lot quicker than Barcelona did. It would appear that our league is a tougher one to get into than many people think--the financial commitment and the single entity structure have scared away many would be owners over the years. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it tends to filter out a lot of potential problems down the line. Ok-- we are all still waiting on Paris St Germain now, and of course the Curtis Martin bid group is still out there. Of course Man City's sheikh may still decide he wants a new toy in MLS and just decide to name the club something else altogether.... and then of course we go back to the "will they or wont they sell the Cosmos name" saga...
City threw its hat in the ring 2 weeks ago - now all of a sudden they are agreeing to a deal with 100 million expansion fee like that? I had my doubts about that because im sure Man City are just as good businessmen as MLS - and they were not just coming to an agreement on all terms in 2 weeks. This to me said - if the Cosmos or whomever else does not want to pay 100 million - here is a rumor that i can get it elsewhere
This night there will be 9k Verona fans in San Siro for the game vs Inter in Italian Cup. I am a Napoli fan, but I love the truth...
I was just joking. They DO have a very dedicated tifoseria. But, we should define "best"... how many of them are there for the game, and how many for the "politics"?
I was (partially ) joking. They do have a very dedicated tifoseria, with season tickets numbers in line with Serie A teams. But, we should define "best"... how many of them are there for the game, and how many for the "politics"? And the same could be said for Atalanta... Anyway, better not go OT too much.
To get back on topic (Because the best fans in Italy are Salernitana ) The reality is - i think we are a ways off from the club being announced so a lot can happen. Fact is...the stadium deal has not been announced. All you saw was a town hall. The deal with the city is still pending...and just then begins the ULURP
So far the only ones who have gone all the way are Red Bull and Vergara. They are owners of rather mid-sized clubs on the world scale. Man City and Barcelona are much larger operations that require a much larger investment. Divesting resources from them is a bigger risk perhaps. Then again, Red Bull also owns a very expensive F1 team, several extreme competitive teams as well, and recently funded a free-fall from the edge of space. So they're also spending money in many different places yet still found MLS to be worth the investment. And they bought in for more than Barcelona would have I believe and built the stadium on their own dime.
Cosmos seem to be trying to build in Queens. Seems more likely now the MLS is not anticipating the Cosmos as NYC2. http://thisiscosmoscountry.com/?p=3862
It certainly does appear to be the case... I wonder how this impacts the MLS stadium fight in Flushing. It's not hard to imagine somebody (an idiot, most likely) asking why the Borough needs two soccer stadiums.
I agree. Hell, it's hard enough to get one approved. I was just thinking of the NIMBY or that pandering politician that suggest Citi using the Cosmos stadium location to block Flushing.
What are you guys talking about? The Cosmos Belmont stadium and the MLS flushing stadium are two different things. They won't affect each other. That is like saying if someone wanted to build a stadium Brooklyn for USL pro then mls flushing stadium should not exist. Again two different things. Anyway Belmont and Flushing are very far away from each other. What I do like is how every team in NASL are looking to build soccer specific stadium or already putting plans in motion. What I also like is they are building stadiums for their team and not just for MLS. Truth is NYC can support four soccer teams two in queens but very far from each other, Brooklyn, and if we are lucky maybe Manhattan. If you live in NYC you do know residents take pride in their borough its like a city within a city. And if people notice the development that NYC is going through, Bloomberg is trying to make each borough competitive and create reasons for tourist to visit each borough. I say the cosmos belmont stadium is good because nassau has been trying to develop that site since 2009. FYI- Belmont Park is over 400 acres of land. Garber decided not pursue this site because it was too far east not deep in NYC urban core.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I say absolutely build both stadiums. Keep the Cosmos in NASL and have MLS NY2. Hell, throw a USL/NASL team and stadium in Brooklyn too. NYC can support multiple teams. What I'm talking about is the political bullshit already going on with Flushing. The guy running for Queens borough president recently suggested that MLS NY2 should play at Citi. Obviously he either has no clue about the current state of MLS or simply doesn't care. Either way, he is pandering to the anti-stadium voters. The Cosmos stadium plans, which should be less expensive and do not rely on parkland in Flushing, give him -and those like him - another tool to fight MLS in Flushing. Basically the Cosmos' stadium document coming to light at this time will only add fuel to his flames.
I agree with you on the Queens borough president. It makes you wish that the borough Brooklyn president switch if the Queens president. MLS does not have to worry about the Wilpons because of the whole madoff finances. Garber true opposition is the people and trying to get them on his side is tough.
Right- two completely different situations - in the same state trying to build a soccer stadium within 7 miles of each other in the same state. My concern is that the state is going to sooner or later say - "one or the other" They both need approvals. I still think there is a lot to happen with these two stadium proposals. Imagine that - the area that could not find a stadium plan now has potentially two.