Don Garber said today that 3 of the 4 expansion franchises are "already spoken for."

This post makes zero sense.

 

The new falcons stadium has little to do with it.

Arthur Blank writing a big check and making a good bid to MLS has everything to do with it.

 

It's not a great location. It's not terrible. But it is not great.

 

You guys realize that every place can't be included in the four teams right? There are three spots after Beckham.

If some guy gets approval to build an SSS in Wichita, MLS isn't just gonna give him a team.

 

true. that was ottawa.

 

WHAT!?!!?! Hours of my time down the drain just like that!?

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)

 

Miami is a market that needs to win for fans to come. They also need big names. Hence the 4-5 DPs. If you need proof look at the Marlins, even when they won world series, University of Miami, Miami Heat, and Miami Dolphins.

If fans don't come, you don't make money. And the reason Euro players are interested in Miami is because it is Miami more than MLS and it looks to be a good place to settle.

 

But honestly, all that means is Kraft realizes he wouldn't get his money back by investing more in the team. And he's probably right. So unless city of Boston will give him free money towards a stadium on the T, he's managing his business to be cost recovery. I don't shit on him for that. I treat that as reality of business.

Now I agree with the terrible location and second rate comment, but I think it's just a fact of life. MLS isn't taking over the NFL anytime soon. So let's not act like the owners should treat them equivalently.

And the same would hold true in Atlanta.

The major point is the league is only going to give teams to groups willing to cut a big fat cheque. So if groundsharing makes it easier to justify cutting a big fat cheque.

It's better than the owners who seek public funds for stadiums so they can cut big fat cheques to MLS.

 

http://soccer.si.com/2013/09/13/mls-expansion-team-likely-heading-atlantas-way/?sct=hp_t2_a10

It sounds like Atlanta is all but done. It sounds like Garber is really try be a presence in the largest tv markets. It’s all about $. I really don’t like ATL due to the history of the NHL which is the league MLS should compare itself to. And from what I hear, the Braves don’t even sell out playoff games. Come on now. But this puts me at ease:

The new stadium is being designed with a wide, soccer-friendly field and MLS locker rooms. It also may feature a secondary retractable roof system that will cover the upper tiers, leaving approximately 27,000 seats available for league games


I think that’s pretty cool. I’d be happy with that. Hopefully it’s a better set up than what they have at BC Place.
I think 2 of the other expansion teams will be Orlando and Miami (Beckham).
If we are to go by largest tv markets, the 4th team comes down to Detroit or Minnesota. Minnesota will only work if they can get the same set up ATL with the retractable secondary roof and dimensions. I think MN will be wildy successful with MLS as they are a great sports region. Otherwise, give it to Detroit (another great sports town). Owners are actually willing to build a downtown stadium despite owning the Silverdome just because “that is what MLS wants. “ I think that is awesome that an ownership group goes above and beyond to meet MLS demands. From what I understand, the ownership group is not asking for public funding and Detroit will welcome it as it could help the economy.

 

If I were in charge of awarding expansions:
After NYCFC is made #20, I'd go Orlando #21. Miami I am definitely not sold on but 99% of that is due to those taxpayers already being hit over the head with the Marlins new ballpark. The Dolphins are begging (and losing) for a new NFL stadium. I see no way Miami gets a new MLS stadium or anything in that current climate. Miami's current facilities just don't get me excited for anything.

I'd instantly cut out Atlanta too. MLS needs to be able to not rely on the NFL. Atlanta is firmly a football town. The NBA Hawks struggle with attendance when not doing well. They've lost their NHL team which is a huge red mark IMO. That shows an unwillingness to support "niche" sports which hockey and soccer would be in SEC/NCAA country. The numbers may show something optimistic in the southeast but I don't see it.

#22 would go to San Antonio or Phoenix. I think the Southwest has a surprising lack of teams considering it's proximity to Mexico. San Antonio might be on the backburner considering Texas already has 2 teams.

#23 and #24 would be Minnesota and Detroit. Why? Because. That's why. Too bad Detroit is beyond broke and Minnesota suffers the same stadium option as Atlanta.

As a side note, I would also strip Chivas from it's current owners and move it south to San Diego. San Diego and Los Angeles is a big time So-Cal rivalry. Plus, having Tijuana across the border is a plus in my mind. Mexico/US matches all the time.

 

Pretty glad you aren't the commissioner.

 

No, what it means is Kraft hasn't evolved with the league. And there's a difference between recognizing the NFL is a bigger business and treating your MLS team with blithe disregard. Joint NFL-MLS owners historically have treated their MLS teams like offseason programming. Kraft just happens to be the last dinosaur.

Of course Blank might be in line to become Jurassic MLS 2.

I agree that if this is going to happen, that fat check will be the determining factor. I'm sure Garber is telling himself Atlanta will be like Seattle because the stadium is downtown, and that Blank really cares. My question is will this be Hawks bad or Thrashers bad?

 

getting into bed with NFL owners as sole owners of MLS teams is a HUGE mistake. playing in giant NFL stadiums is a HUGE mistake (unless you are Seattle or have a BC Place like set up with roof and inner roof).

ATL is NOT Seattle, never will be.

Blank as sole owner of an MLS team will rightly keep the NFL team as his main priority and with no other owners to keep their sole focus and dedication to the MLS team (like in Seattle where 3/4ths owners are solely focused on Sounders, one of which brings decades of D2 soccer experience) the team will be a red-headed step child and will struggle to achieve mediocrity.

MLS teams where the MLS team isn't the top (or at least a very close 2nd) priority for a majority of the ownership group tend to struggle to be even mediocre. MLS teams where the ownership group by majority has MLS as its sole and sports focus are mostly very successful (Chicago aside). that is the landscape as it stands today and it should be the lesson learned from the past decade.

it is why Orlando City will be a huge "boutique" success (like Portland or RSL) and NYCFC with it's MCFC/Yankees priority and any team in ATL or MIN owned by NFL owners will likely be middling at best.

 

If MLS is smart (and every indication is that they are) any new ownership agreement will come with contractual obligations designed to limit the sort of negligence found in certain other teams.

 

Atlanta and Miami in the same round, because the two curses should cancel out, right?

 

Here we go again...

 

As someone who LIVES IN THE CITY OF ATLANTA I think BS will be pleasently surprised by the support the Atlanta MLS team will receive. Hell the Silverbacks are supported well(they will be hosting the NASL Soccer Bowl in November which I'm going to)

 

The problem is those boutique successes do little in securing a big tv contract. Its very obvious the main driving force here is TV and it is why i suspect the last team will be in another large market without a team. Which is why i'd place money on Detroit or Minneapolis over a place like Indy for example.

 

Now that would be pretty cool, not sure how much something like that would cost, but if they can do it, I will take bad all my bad comments about MLS playing in NFL stadiums outside Seattle.

 

Oh yea I forgot, the Thrashers(NHL) were WELL SUPPORTED here and we loved them. If anyone paid attention then you would see that the Atlanta Spirit Group sold all of our players and never built the team back up which lead to the attendance drop and the team being sold. Same with the Hawks. As long as ASG owns the Hawks they will never have good attendance. You guys should know more than anybody that bad ownership(Hello Chivas) leads to bad support. You never hear anything about the Braves who average 45k or the Falcons who average 70k.

 

This is very cool and takes away most of my reservations about a team playing in New Falcons Stadium.

The negative: It's still gonna be turf

 

Garber is not stupid enough to think that Atlanta is going to be Seattle.

And the stadium isn't really "downtown" in that people are going to be walking to the stadium.

The people who live in the area where the stadium is are not likely to be soccer fans.

 

This is very cool and takes away most of my reservations about a team playing in New Falcons Stadium.

The negative: It's still gonna be turf

 

Oh boy.

I think you actually are purposefully missing the point of the current round of expansion. It's not a mistake that the teams are being announced where they are announced and that the league is letting out info long before the teams play. TV contracts are up.

MLS doesn't really need another Seattle/Portland, what it needs is people watching the TV broadcasts all across the nation (and the money that comes with higher ratings and a wider footprint). Atlanta is the single largest TV market not served by an MLS team.

You say a team there will "struggle to achieve mediocrity." To which I say "even if you are right, so what?" Not every team can win every year. Someone has to be mediocre and someone has to be bad. Having good teams actually implies you have bad teams, doesn't it?

Meanwhile MLS is still doing everything it can to model itself on the NFL, where every team has a chance and money doesn't decide champions - unlike MLB; and soccer in most of the world. If anything the structure helps even bad owners out of potential mediocrity (see Bengals, Cincinnati, and Revolution, New England).