So it looks like Texas is getting another MLS team... only it's going to be in San Antonio. It seems like a sweet deal for MLS so I'm trying not to complain. But does this make an MLS team in Houston more or less likely? Or does it depend on whether MLS moves the Quakes or the Wizards to SA? Any thoughts?
Any links to the particuliars? This does worry me a bit. Although, if a team is going to be successful in Houston, I think it should still get one. This would create two instant rivalries in the state. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio could all work together. Now if it comes down to two teams getting the next expansion, then I do not believe both would get a team. It would possibly happen if a team is relocated to one of the areas. bford
Ok, I saw the announcment on mlsnet.com There are some hurdles to meet but not that many. Man I hate the Alamodome though. So do most of my friends that live in SA. It needs major improvements. We'll see how this impacts Houston. It might be hard to get a 2007 team unless one moves. It looks like SA and Toronto are ahead of us at this point for sure. bford
I've got mixed opinions. It sounds as if its a pretty good deal for MLS...but I think this seriously damages Houston's shot at a MLS club in the short term (next 3 years), and at least makes is slightly more difficult to get a club long-term. I think that the I/O is still the missing puzzle piece in San Antonio - and that is a massive hole. Hopefully, this will inspire the Sports Authority to get serious and get something done here quickly. If Houston comes up with the I/O first - the franchise will come here first. There is still a race - but SA has made a bold move.
I do believe that this has a significant impact on Houston's chances of landing a team in the near future (i.e. 3 to 5 years), unless: 1) Houston offers up a deal to MLS that is at least as sweet as San Antonio's. MLS has now clearly shown that it is interested in setting up shop in markets where it has a chance to make money, get practice facilities built, etc. 2) MLS comes to the conclusion that two new Texas-based teams doesn't significantly skew the league's "footprint" nationally. The league may well reason that as long as two expansion/relocation candidates come from other regions of North America, everything will be fine. After all, no offense to other cities in Texas, but once teams were established in Dallas (current), San Antonio (on the table) and Houston (proposed), its not like the league is going back to Texas.
It probably makes the chance of a Houston team close to never happening. When Houston tried to get an expansion team, they had huge problems concerning a soccer specific stadium considering, Houston just finished off paying for Reliant Stadium, and I believe there are talks about a new baseball stadium. I certainly doubt Houston will help pay for another stadium, its not like DC where votes can be bought.
Are you saying there's a chance for a new baseball stadium in Houston now? MinuteMaid Park is way too new and is a great money making venue for the Stros. Or did I read your post wrong (which has been known to happen).
I wouldn't be worried about the SA news. I think there's a good chance Club America want in MLS in the next couple of years. They have deep pockets and have already picked Houston as the place to be. I used to think 3 teams in Texas is too much. But I don't think it matters and MLS doesn't care. It actually reduces travel costs and builds rivalries. As for "geographic footprint", Houston is exactly where MLS wants to grow. It has size also which is a plus. There aren't any big market candidates out there anyways for other regions. Toronto will get a team and Seattle might, but it's not like there's anyone better sitting out there. Philly is the only market that rivals Houston in MLS's eyes (IMO) and it still might not be Houston's equal. If Houston was getting a team, SA should be worried (a little). But not the other way around. I'd guess a positive impact, if any.
Not sure I remember someone told me about a new baseball stadium and NFL stadium as reasoning behind Houstion not paying up for a sss.
Well. I am not sure what do you mean with "too much". SA, Dallas, and Houston are far enough that their markets don't overlap, but close enough to build rivalries. Also, their markets would reach different regions of Texas. I don't think this displaces Houston per se, but it does mean that SA has moved closer to a team than Htown.
Well. Two major factors were missing. Stadium and I/O. Mayor Garza got a sweet deal from SA. Now that will be his leverage to attract an I/O. From what I have read, it could be either a combination of loca I/Os based in Texas OR get a green light from CEMEX (who own Tigres UANL) or TeleVisa (who own America). Yes. America stated that Houston was their place, but that was a press conference statement AND NOT a contract with City of Houston. With a sweet carrot like the one Mayor Garza is putting forth, America can always change their mind.
Could be. CA might also keep focused on the bigger market, though. But if it was Tigres, that might just make CA more jealous. Generally I think a team in SA improves Houston's chances, though it might give them competition for a particular round of expansion.
please try rereading my post you quoted I said I USED to think 3 teams were too much. As in, 3 teams in Texas in a 12-14 team league is excessive. I DON'T think that anymore. I was worried about "geographic footprint" in the PAST. Now I'm excited about the rivalries, I know each market is separate, and 3 thriving TX franchises, even if MLS is 12 teams, is good for MLS. It's like you're disagreeing with me even though I think the exact same thing?
If your concern is about having 3 teams in one state, then don't be so worried; California now has 3 teams.
First of all, I don't Htow should worry too much. Houston is still a prime market with a huge population (that also follows soccer) and a key tv market. So. That aside. It's a matter of time and the need to get the two major key components: Stadium and I/O. Second of all, I think SA courting CEMEX (Tigres) may spur Houston to work to get a franchise and find a home for Club America.
Three teams in one state? That would be huge. Then again Texas is figgin huge, its almost as big as my back garden. I don't know how long it takes two travel between all three of the cities. I can only imagine "We don't take kindly to FC Dallas fans round these parts boy" jk but seriously, two words... Away Fans (imagine the atmosphere)
San Antonio to Houston could probably be driven by a borderline maniac in three hours. Either one to Dallas would take longer.
My gut feeling is to say stick a fork in Houstons short-term plans to get an MLS team. However, if Chivas is successful and another Mexican owner wants to pony up some dough to put a team in MLS, I'm sure Houston would be one of a handful of cities the team would be located. Otherwise, I'd think it might be tougher to land in Houston without taking a hard look at other markets first.
Well. Let's put it this way. Texas is the size of France. How many professional teams exists in France? As far as travel time, probably three to four hours.
Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston? Sounds good to me. I'm not even from texas. But I like the idea of teams having a local rivalry. That just spurs all kind of local interest and that's good for the league. The NFL grew out of the rivalries of the midwest, Chicago, Green Bay, Minnesota... MLB grew out of the rivalries of New York, Yankees, Giants, Dodgers. I live in Wilkes-Barre and this town goes nuts when the AHL WB-S Penguins play Hershey or Philly, NUTS! That's why I eventually see MLS as a huge multitiered league and I think we have to start in non MLB cities. I see 36 teams easy. Northeast 1. Revolution 2. Metrostars 3. New York City 4. Connecticut 5. Philadelphia 6. DC Midwest 1. Chicago 2. Columbus 3. Cleveland 4. Rochester 5. Toronto 6. Indianapolis Southwest 1. Dallas 2. San Antonio 3. Houston 4. Oklahoma 5. Kansas City 6. Denver Southeast 1. Birmingham 2. Atlanta 3. Carolina 4. Tampa 5. Miami 6. Orlando Pacific 1. LA 2. LA 3. San Diego 4. Salt Lake 5. Las Vegas 6. Arizona Northwest 1. Portland 2. Seattle 3. Vancouver 4. San Jose 5. Sacramento Others 1. Minnesota 2. Pittsburgh 3. Louisville/Cincy 4. Memphis/Nashville 5. Baltimore 6. St. Louis Lets not forget MLS franchises are a value and an I/O could come in with 2 or 3 teams. Comcast could say, MLS is good we could own, DC, Philly, and Baltimore. Once an AEG or Hunt franchise is sold Lamar or Uncle Phil could just decide to start up another expansion team. If MLS becaomes profitable towards the end of the decade, why not? Yeah I know, I'm rambling.
If SA comes through and lands a team by 2006, Houston's only chance would be CA. That's if CA doesn't decide to take over the dome just to stop losing ground to Chivas.
The only way SA getting a team in 06 hurts Houston's chances is if there's only one serious investor who decides that the Alamodome's sweet deal outweighs the greater benefits of being in the Houston market. That situation is, of course, possible, but I think unlikely. Televisa/CA examined both SA and Houston and reached the fairly obvious conclusion that Houston is the better market (e.g., population, corporate sponsorship base, per capita/household incomes, etc.). There's a reason why big firms or companies in Houston and Dallas typically expand from one to the other before going to SA. It's perfectly possible that Televisa/CA could decide that the Alamodome's deal is just too good to pass up. But doing so would put them in the state's third-best market. I don't get the impression that CA's jefes like to think of themselves as even second-rate, much less third-rate. Yes, it's a great stadium deal, but the broader economics of SA just don't match Houston. The stadium deal is great, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Additionally, it's not at all clear that there's only one potential investor looking at these markets. CA has already expressed its interest in Houston. Tigres and Rayados are the other organizations mentioned in the Spanish-language media as looking at SA. Sure, CA could swoop in and take the Alamodome's deal first, but they would have to see the deal as so good as to outweigh their own conclusions about the broader advantages of the Houston market.
I dont think we should worry we wil get a team in 07. SJ or KC move to San Antonio. And in 07 Toronto and Houston the two new expansion teams. Sounds good to me.
Sounds about right, but Rochester and Seattle will make strong pushes. I still think Houston is the better market (cause of the recent tilt towards MFL) but Seattle is all alone up there right now and has a rent free stadium with an Anschutz corporation name on it. Rochester has the stadium this year though it isn't big enough or with all the suites just yet. Someone might have to wait. But I'm 90%+ certain Houston will have a team by 2007.