Depends, I guess. I don't know if the TV partners are giving them more for the second LA team when it's not very telegenic, and I don't know that they'd necessarily give them less if that second LA franchise was suddenly Sacramento's only franchise (I don't know that the differences in revenue are as large, maybe they are). In terms of the ancillary revenue, well, we've been led to believe that Chivas does quite well with sponsorship dollars, though I don't know how much of that gets shared with the collective or not. It certainly SOUNDS sexier to have a team in Los Angeles than one in Nashville, but I don't know for sure - given that some things get shared and some do not, given that increased ticket sales revenue in Nashville MIGHT outweigh what you might lose in ancillary revenue just by BEING in Los Angeles. It MIGHT be a net positive. I don't know. Garber doesn't sell franchises. MLS, LLC does, after a vote of the league's Board of Governors.
[quote="The ONLY team that needs to move and should even be considered is Chivas and that's just because they are an abomination to the league with their outright attempts to be the worst franchise in American sports history. [/quote] In fairness, Los Goats aren't quite there yet (worst franchise in American sports history)... in fact, historically speaking, they aren't even the worst team in LA sports history, but Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Doc Rivers and Billy Crystal are working feverishly to elevate the Clippers to a level of sustained legitimacy. I like their chances (the Clippers, not Los Goats).
I mean, seriously did the LA Sports Arena (Danny Manning years) ever look THIS bleak? "Good evening, thanks for calling the championship-bound LA Clippers." "What time is the tip-off tonight?" "Well, what time can you get here?"
The Major Soccer League (MLS) has a good track record for the markets they have selected. There was a lot of stragetic information put into the planning, research & development of this league. Expansion is on the horizon and not relocation. Television coverage will increase the interest and exposure the league is now enjoying. 2013 attendance figures: http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/usa.1/major-league-soccer?cc=5901 The attendance performance by Chivas USA should not be a concern at this point; any possible relocation is a bit premature at this stage. Two MLS teams sharing the same stadium does have its drawbacks. The NBA is more established with the Clippers & Lakers occupying the Staples Center which does make for strange bedfellows; however the established basketball fan base does allow for the two NBA powers to co-exist. The NHL expanded into Los Angeles in 1967-68 with a market that boasts 300,000 canadiens. The NHL did manage to carve its niche into that lucrative market. Expansion should invariably be the focus of the league moving forward. There are still some large markets which could enhance the footprint of soccer in North America: Atlanta, Cleveland, Miami, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, San Antonio and St. Louis. Markets which could become attractive to MLS expansion and shouldn't be overlooked are Austin, Nashville, Las Vegas, Louisville, Providence, Richmond, Rochester and Sacramento.
Sure did... Providence, Rhode Island 38th largest MSA 1,600,852 (2010) census Larger MSA population than the NFL's Jacksonville, NHL's Raleigh and the NBA's Milwaukee, Memphis, Oklahoma City & New Orleans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas Providence, Rhode Island 53rd largest TV Market: http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_Ranks2.pdf Providence has the available income to support any one of several major league sports franchises: http://wagesofwins.com/2011/10/31/could-your-city-give-a-sports-team-a-good-home/
The main disadvantage for Providence must surely be their location? Situated between Boston and New York I mean.
Forty-one miles from Boston; that is a legimite concern. The NHL Hurricanes (formerly Whalers) would be in Hartford (94-miles from Beantown) instead of Raleigh, if Hartford had been farther away from Boston. Thank God, Oklahoma City (NBA Thunder) is roughly 200-miles from Dallas or our major league hopes for any sports would be shattered. This is a definite drawback for Profvidence. Does it mean that MLS or NASL soccer couldn't work in Providence? One thing which is unique about Rhode Island & Connecticut is that they tend to rally behind the whole state and cities like Providence and Hartford are now ready for major professional sports they can call their own. Hartford may resurface as a major league sports option if ownership is willing to do what it takes to make a franchise successful. These second/third tier cities are tired of living in the shadows of the mega markets like Boston, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle and Denver. Why couldn't soccer work in upcoming places like Tulsa, OK, Greenville, SC, Boise, ID, Springfield, MA or Albuquerque, NM? Distance calculator: http://www.indo.com/distance/index.html
Oklahoma City Thunder... It´s you that got that big fella that walks around in Man City shirts now and then as I recall it. He cleaned out the merchandise superstore before some game in Manchester That said it might be that he´s connected to NIKE in some way and it´s all freebies..
Oh, Serge Ibaka... We're very fortunate to have him playing for the Thunder. He speaks three languages; he's very fluent in French & Spanish.
That's not the problem. Rhode Island is very much in the Boston sphere of influence, sportswise. I'd say that the bigger problem is that there's already an MLS team whose home stadium is closer to Providence than it is to Boston.
I fear that we have derailed this thread somewhat "mea culpa etc" But why should MLS buy out teams that struggle to sell tickets really? I mean..the owners ought to be the ones desperate to improve matters.
Good thread; too bad some think their own interpretation is all that counts. Bad management should not be moved or even fired it should be relegated. Expanding mediocrity on the pitch via more clubs is just plain wrong. The fees collected by MLS for new clubs are now for a method to return principal to investors and not to add "quality" to the entertainment value. This year, Chivas, Toronto and DC begged to be relegated, yet like a bad meal they will return. Stop expanding at the top and let the smaller cities develop there own niche. Smaller cities can exist at the top level but it takes long term commitment that quite frankly this years 3 sides do not have. San Antonio in basketball, Green Bay in football are examples of what can be done with the right leadership.
No, Toronto does not deserve to be relegated. They are a top 10 sports market in North America. They have money to spend. DC United should not be relegated because they are a 4 time champion. They just had a fluke season. They should improve soon and get extra revenue with the new stadium.
Furthermore, onfield performance is completely irrelevant in the discussion of what is, and isn't, a quality MLS franchise. A team like TFC is a model MLS franchise. They built a stadium, they certainly meet all their financial obligations to the league and they've shown they're willing to spend money on DP's. Their onfield problems don't really factor into the analysis. Chivas is kind of a problem for the league. But their onfield woes aren't really the issue.
Relegation does not mean out of existence. It means drop down, reorganize and compete to get back to the higher level. DC is in an area that loves futbol and no doubt would be back; just like the Maple Leafs in hockey (42 years and counting since last title). But DC does compete as they were in the eastern finals last year. Speaking of Toronto, it is a major city in North America and would compete as a major club with the right ownership. Chivas is hopeless and needs to be gone; like many hoop clubs. Relegation makes franchises stronger and the competition at a higher level. Coddling inept ownership like the three clubs listed keeps MLS from reaching its potential as a top league.
The Revs will eventually resolve their stadium issues for better or worse and play someplace within the region. Dallas is a case of solving a stadium situation for worse. They reflect the wrong-headed assumptions people make about MLS. Namely find a place with some Hispanics and build a nice suburban stadium close to families and you can print money. What we are seeing is that the people who are actually buying MLS tickets tend be under 35 and more attracted to urban living. With ticket prices, most of them likely very young professionals who either grew up playing soccer or became fans from playing video games or both. FCD's biggest issue is consistency. They go from missing the playoffs to the MLS Cup. That's not a great formula in a market that loves the Cowboys unconditionally and will love anyone else conditional upon consistent success. Chivas, they are a mess. Their current role is to serve as a caution. All you have to do before an owner or director wants to do something stupid is caution them to not be Chivas. That said, I don't see the Don allowing them to be his failure by landing in Minneapolis or Atlanta. I figure Chivas ends up someplace between San Diego and Anaheim and victory is declared.
If Relegation makes franchisees "stronger", why do European Leagues almost never have small teams winning 1st place? Promotion of tier 2 franchisees usually relegate back down.
I never can understand why people think relegation will promote better on filed quality, it is inherently a system that blindly punishes a team for being last, no matter how media important, well run or profitable the team is. thats not a recipe for success here. somebody will always finish last, no matter how many right things they do, not giving them another chance and instead batting them down to D2 where they'll likely lose a lot of revenue and lose a few pissed investors (in fact this is great deterrent for potential buyers) just leaves the franchise in shambles trying to pick up the pieces. I'm sure that will lead to a fantastic increase of quality, especially after adding some financially unready D2 franchise (one that is probably there because they couldn't afford D1 expenses) to die after they either get their ass beaten or go broke just trying to compensate. that'll be great for the league, truly. the suburban stadium thing is misconception, each market works differently, SKC plays away from downtown, RSL does too, their relatively successful are they not? Chivas USA might move closer to Anaheim as their stadium deal is up next year, but not in between markets (I don't know what you're getting at there)