Put MLS in Rochester now. Smart move. When MLS has 18 - 20 teams, and owns the USL A-League, then eventually you can relegate em
Another issue that Rochester will face is "major league" ticket prices. For example, we have the Gold Medal winning USWNT coming to town Sept. 25th with Rochester native Abby Wambach, and people are pissing and moaning about tickets that range from $18-40. If people are complaining about prices for this kind of event with a local native who was pretty much the team MVP, I don't know how an entire MLS season will look. I personally hope lots of people will be willing to step up to the plate (or should i say penalty spot?). I have a feeling that a lot of the soccer mom families who could care less about the level of competition won't be happy to pay more for MLS. Already there are a lot of them who think A-League soccer is "just as good if not better than MLS". What happens when the Rhinos join the MLS "Parity" club and go 10-10-10 on the season? I have some doubts, but my hope for success lies in this theory: People will come out the first season to see how "their Rhinos" can do in MLS. They'll get hooked by a much better product at a much better venue and feel OK about spending more $$$ over the long haul.
I would think an MLS match would be more meaningful than whatever these 10 jogs in the park are going to be for the USWNT, but whatever. But you're right. If the venue is better and the product is better, people may be able to justify higher ticket prices in their own mind. But we don't know if the product will be better. That remains to be seen.
This can't be farther from the truth. If MLS goes to Rochester it already has an owner who own their stadium, ie better cash flows. If MLS goes to Rochester there are fans who will go to games. The league doesn't have to sell itself. Rochester is already a soccer city. They want to see the higher league. MLS has to go to Rochester. It's easy, less costly expansion.
Spare me the BS straw man arguments. Those are not the only two choices. This league will always have a slary cap and they will always pursue the "parity" they have now. Each teams financial expenditure level will be set so as not to make any team uncompetitive. Putting a team in small towns like Rochester will peg the financial clout of the each team at the level of the smallest team ie Rochester. It will mean the league will never be able to hold onto the star players this league will develop in the future and will not be able to attract the quality internationals we need to be a truly elite league.. We will not be able to truly grow and capture the publics imagination if we are seen by society as a whole as simply a feeder league for europe. That is the problem we have now. It has nothing to do with wanting to see "sexy'" names so people can feel better about themselves. That argument is juvenile and is beneath you. Its about cold hard reality and future growth. If MLS wants to see people,step forward to be investors they need to open up the operational side of the league. Allow operators to have more say in how their investment is run. I don't understand this rush to take any investor at all because in the eyes of many "Well investors aren't beating down the leagues door as it is." Well there are reasons for that. And the longer we ignore those reasons the more entrenched this game will be in the suburbs and the more we will be seen as an outsider sport. I don't see why it is so hard to understand that towns like Rochester and Oklahom City are not major league towns and we need to work towards making this league more attractive to peole in major league sports town instead of settling for what they can get.
Oh please I put this in the same category as when europeans say "I'll support MLS when its more like the premiership." Its more excuses conncocted by people like you over the years. And when those conditions are met people like you will create new ones. Its all nonesense. Rochester has a team now. Besides the Salty Dogs they are the only NY State team. Do you support them now? No? Thank you for proving my point.
Goo post. People need to realise its not as simple as "Well someone wants into MLS, they have the money, they should be in." That thought process is so stupid its infuriating. Everything in life has positives and negatives. All people want to look at is the positives. When it gets to the point when an entity can't be selective about its associations then that entity is in trouble.
So what happens in 15 year when we have 16-20 teams and we want to hold onto the talent we have as well as attract outside talent to help the league take the next big step towards being a major league? Will Rochester be able to support a team that has a 15-25 million dolar payroll? Or do we all expect MLS to always be a league that has payrolls of less than 5 mil a year and be just a feeder league as it is now.?
Well, I don't agree with your argument, but at least you've thought it through well. I'd disagree with the notion that every team's financial clout will be pegged at the level of the smallest team - the MetroStars have a much, much bigger budget than Columbus, as they should. Their cost of doing business is much higher. And it's going to be much higher whether the bottom team in expenditures is Dallas or San Jose or Rochester or Oklahoma City. I'd also disagree that the "talent drain" to Europe is going to be a major buzzkill. Among the most knowledgeable folks, yeah, but I think people in Chicago realize that DaMarcus Beasley ain't coming back, but hopefully there will be more behind him. As for this: If that doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. But I can assure you there are people here whose sole argument is that they don't get all excited when they hear "Rochester" but they do get all excited when they hear "Philadelphia" even though I'd take my chances with DuRoss and Economides over some of the jackasses who have been put in charge of big-market MLS teams. And I get to decide what's beneath me, thank you very much. If you're looking for MLS to be an "elite league" anytime in the next 20 years, I would tell you not to hold your breath. As far as capturing the imagination of the American sporting public, that ain't gonna happen, either, whether we keep all of our stars or sell them all off. Because outdoor league soccer ain't that popular as a spectator sport, and it's not going to be anytime soon. The bottom line is this: The best case scenario in pro soccer in America, in my mind, is that you eke out an existence and maybe do a little bit better than that on occasion. There's no shame in that. It's just the nature of the beast when you are in a country with tons of competition and more than a hundred years of societal forces that have combined to make soccer relatively unpopular to the masses. Can MLS do better? Sure. And I think it will. Will it be an "elite" league along the lines of the ones you think of when you think "elite" league? I don't think our society will ever lift it up to that level. Is that the end of the world? No, I don't think so. It is what it is. You don't cash it in and say "Well, what's the point, then?" The point is - if someone has the wherewithal to make a go of it, let's let them try and fail before we dismiss them out of hand because they're not wearing good enough clothes to sit at the Cool Kids' Table right now. If circumstances change and Rochester isn't able to afford a $15-$20 million payroll, move 'em. Circumstances may change. Pittsburgh used to have an elite baseball team. The rules of the game changed on them. Baseball hasn't done anything yet to address that chasm. If 20 years down the road, Rochester finds that the rules of soccer have changed and instead of spending $7 million a year they have to spend $30 million a year and their market can't generate it, fine. Then make an adjustment. But don't worry about that today. We have a long way to get to that point. I think you're worrying too far ahead about something that may or may not happen.
I am not talking about operating budget I am talking about player salaries. Its not about talent drain. Its about beinga ble to hold onto some of our best players If we can't do thatthe league will not be able to grow beyond the point it is now because the public will see it as a minor league. 1. Those people are jackasses. 2. Once again those are nto the only two choices. There are many things MLs does poorly that makes people not wnat to invest. That is you view the american sports landscape has changed a lot in 25 years and their will be ven more change in the next 20-25. 1. Nonesense. You can still aim for the sky while eke out an existence and being responsible and fiscally prudent. 2. Your argument flies in the face of relality. Professional soccer is arguable less popular now than it was in the days ofthe NASL. And that was a poorly run league. The game can be much bigger in the eyes of sports fans that it is now. 3. We need to get rid of this inferiority complex we have with regards to other sports and discount these so called "societal forces". The fact is most people in this country are not against soccer they are for the most part ambivalent to it and most of them choose not to adopt the biases of their parents. There are no forces at work here. /that is 1970's type thinking that is no longer relevant I alraedy stated what I think denotes elite league status the ability of eeach team to carry a payroll of 25 million or more. In 2015 dollars that is not as much as people think. Didn't we already try that in miami and tampa bay. Are we still ready to settle for that? Brilliant! Them we will be just like every other sports league caring only about money and having no loyalty to the community. I would think MLS's relative youth would afford it the ability to learn form the past mistakes of other league and allow it to occupy and place in the market place that is different than other league. We don't need to wrench teams away from fans again and again everytime an adjustment is necessary. Crapola. Baseball created the chasm. Over expansion has diluted the talent pool as well as the revenue stream and as a result hasinhibited the ability of small market teams to compete. Its not like there are the same number of teams and the talent level has remained constant and "stuff" just happened. The owners including the owners of pittsburgh back them voted in all these teams took their expansion fees and now the towns pay the price for their greed. There are too many teams and many of the players in the bigs now really belong in AAA. As a result teams are paying big league salaries to minro league talents and are paying even more to the major league talents. Fans know garbage when they see it and stay away. Shouldn't we aim to put teams in areas where they will be for 100 years. Shouldn't we aim for a higher standard than other sports leagues? Can't we do that without being irresponsible/ We need to put this league in places where we can put our product in front of masses of people who have not had significant exposure to the league. Places where they will not only come out to the games but also help MLS's tv audience grow. Rochester aint it.
Again, well-thought out. Unfortunately, it appears as though your point of view isn't going to carry the day.
I do actually support the Rhinos I cant do it week in and week out at their stadium seeing how i'm in NYC but yes I read as to what they are up to and do watch them on FOX when the games are on... I enjoy the fact that they out draw your piece of S**t team in NJ week in and week out and have more silverware than you will ever have.. The fact that they are 100 times more profesional towards their fans and players is also another notch in their belts.. Your sorry A$$ team is a mess from top to bottom.. But its only fitting since after all its a New Jersey thing to be a mess... The fact that the Rhinos are from NY make all the difference to me I rather Support an UPSTATE Team rather than a piece of donkey S**t thats closer to me and accross the river in NJ.... Like I said Rochester has done things 100 times better than some MLS team and 1000 times better than the NJ Metroscrubs and deserve to be in Div 1.. Rochester may be a so called small market but if thats the case New Jersey is even smaller and if its all about being in large markets I give you the san jose earthquakes which in its self is a large market mess and they suffer from things that the Rhinos HAVE NOT AND WOULD NEVER SUFFER FROM..... The support in rochester is already there which is far better than NJ and a few other MLS teams... Rochester Deserve MLS and I'm sure they will be a success off the field and the success on the field will just be a matter of time... Like I said dont rag on Rochester in their trophy case alone they have some thing you dont have, championships and a US Open Cup while you have spider webs and a MPF hat... I asure you that Rochester would not draw 3000 to an Open Cup Final in Rochester....Like your sorry A$$ team did in New Jersey...
What a great fan you are. You seem to be more motivated by your hatred of MLS and their teams than any love for Rochester. What a treasure you must be to the Rochester franchise. Its till doen't change the fact that Rochester does not outdraw my team. BTW I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post tell me what I need to do to encourage more of these artistic and linguistic gems from you. Its really interesting and entertaining stuff. PS since you are such a proud and dedicated Rhinos supporter shouldn't yoube making that fact known to the world by adding them to the list of teams you claim to support. Or are you just the pathetic sock puppet that iou clearly have proven yourself to be.
Um, the Rhinos have NEVER drawn that small of a crowd during the regular season. Hell, they have 2,500 for preseason games with NO seating against college teams.
Ummm...it was last monday. Go to www.rhinossoccer.com if you missed the link already posted earlier in the thread.
What you describe is called an opportunity, not a problem. If MLS happened to find itself in a situation like that, then they would have the resources to deal with it. We can only hope we achieve something like 16 - 20 teams and a $15 to $20 million payroll which, by the way, is still not even close to NFL or MLB numbers.
I am not talking about getting close to MLB or NFL (which will probably have higher numbers by then). I am talking generically about the growth of the league. As this league grows it is best to have this league established in large-medium sized cities. We also need to be in these sized cities for the sake of spreading our tv audience. I it is not a good idea to admit small cities like Rochester and then move the team when the league outgrows it. We already took away two teams from fans. Do we want to do that again?
Well it comes down to this, a difference of opinion. A clash of titans, if you will: Rommul: "As this league grows it is best to have this league established in large-medium sized cities. We also need to be in these sized cities for the sake of spreading our tv audience." Don Garber, May 19: "Now, again, (Rochester is) not a market that is going to help us as much as we need help in some of the large cities that we hope to be in from a television perspective, but we need more people supporting the game of soccer. At some point we’re going to have 20 teams and at some point we’re going to be in places like Rochester." Bottom line - MLS disagrees with you. That doesn't make them right and you wrong or vice-versa. But herein lies the rub: MLS thinks Rochester would be a positive, and they get to make the decision.
MLS might disagree with me but much of there motivation comes from the fact that investors are not stepping forward. A large part of the reason for this is the fact that MLS creates an environment that makes it extremely unattractive potential investors. If MLS gets to 16 or 18 teams and needs to go to Rochester to get to 20 I might not have a much problem with it. But they need to concentrate on larger cities first. I think I could take Garber in a no holds barred texas cage match.
It seems to be less so than it was. It seems okay for Kroenke. It seems okay for Vergara. It seems okay for Checketts. It seemed like it wasn't a turnoff for the Seattle folks. Rote bashing of single-entity as the biggest reason people don't invest in soccer is, in my opinion, misguided. People don't invest in soccer because its past is incredibly checkered and its (relative) success in recent years hasn't been proven over the long haul. I'm actually amazed we have as many investors as we have - not because of single-entity, but I'm just amazed and thrilled that there are people willing to lose millions on a sport where your best-case scenario is that you maybe do a little bit better than okay. Well, if my mom had two wheels, she'd be a bicycle. And if people in Philadelphia and Atlanta and Detroit were standing in line to get in, yeah, I'd imagine you'd go with those cities first, if they had the right ownership and a decent stadium solution. I'd imagine you'd tell Rochester thanks, but stay loose in case we need you. But we don't have that. And I don't think we can kick Rochester out of bed IF (big IF - I am more skeptical of their actual ability to pull it off than I was six months ago) they can bring an ownership group, a proven fan base (which would have to be augmented, obviously - as it currently stands it's not big enough) and a new intimate stadium to the table.
Its is not a matter of bashing single entity. Single can remain for the time being but changes can be made to make the league much more attactive to investors. 1) The centralised contract system is unecessary in a league that already has a cap. 2) The hokey player acquisition system is utterly misguided and impairs the ability of teams to create value for themselves (they are trying too hard to emulate other sports league when those league don't face the same realities we do). None of these changes would interefere with single entity. They can have single entity up the wazoo if they so wish but there are still steps that can be taken that would allow an investor more autonomy over their investment. Its nice to have investors coming into the league but there have been investors in the past who have thought MLS was a great idea and are no longer around.