RSL 2012 News Thread (Regular Season)

I'd imagine it's enough to cover their traveling expenses and then possibly a little more.

RSL got to play the role of pimp in this. That had to be a first, right?

 

Minnesota had a choice. They chose to take the money. Minnesota fans will be upset at RSL, but they should be more upset with their FO. Guess what, getting my tickets tonight!!!

 

yes, Minnesota played the role of whore in this.
their fans should be upset at their own FO.

Already sent the email for tickets.

 

Anyone remember the last time we played a team from Minnesota in the US Open Cup?

 

http://rslcup.blogspot.com/2010/11/rsls-2005-us-open-cup.html
those early days were horrible

anybody listen to on frame this week?
Add Kyle Reynish to the "ya know" list

 

Wow, strong reaction to this. Rather than the pimp/whore metaphor, how about this one: I had an acquaintance give me a gift card to a local coffee shop. Being Mormon, it's not worth much to me (I guess I could buy a bunch of hot chocolate...). So, I sold it to a guy in line at the coffee shop for about 2/3rds of its value. I was happy, he was happy.

Minnesota was given the right to host, like I was given the gift card. It wasn't worth as much to them as it was to RSL, so they sold the rights to RSL, like I sold my card to the other guy. I assume that Minnesota anticipated their fans' reactions to having the game moved to the Riot, and still felt that it was worth it to them. RSL's happy, Minnesota's happy. I don't see what the big deal is.

I guess you could argue that it cheapens the US Open Cup in general, since clubs with more money are able to buy home field advantage. But, on the other hand, clubs with more money are also able to buy better players, and we don't balk at that.

 

but the pimp/whore metaphor gets a lot more attention than a freakin gift card

The real "big deal" is that the organizers of this cup sold this new format as fair. They didn't ever mention that, in this round, you could still buy the hosting rights. They sold it as a completely random draw. It wasn't

 

Should be enough for them to be $ ahead compared to hosting with the accruing ticket and concession revenues. If they'd make $10,000 hosting, then they need to be paid $10,000 + travel.

 

Shhh. Don't tell Seattle. It's all they live for.

 

"OK guys, we REALLY gotta beat Des Moines, because if we do, RSL will buy the home rights and the owners will spring for new shoes for everyone and a team pizza party AND a new train set for the Hansen brothers - GO TEAM!"

 

I'm not sure what Minnesota will do with their cash they received from RSL, but it looks like Atlanta will be spending the money they got from Seattle pretty well.

http://www.atlantasilverbacks.com/pro/news/Statement-Released-on-Venue-Change

Not sure how much tickets are for the ATL club, but if they can hold a free game they gotta be making some good $$$$$ from Seattle.

Love reading the Minnesota fans complain on the RSL Facebook page. Maybe after they vent and rest awhile they will realize that their team sold out on them.

Maybe if RSL was a lower tier team, I'd be upset too. Then again, if RSL was a lower tier team I'd probably not be on here. RSL gave me a reason to watch soccer, and now I caught the bug. RSL and Ogden Outlaws baby!!!

 

I really don't understand the outrage. Minnesota won the right to host by chance; they literally won a coin flip. Their fans may be disappointed, but their FO made the decision that it was better for them financially to sell their right to host the game to RSL. Boo-freaking-hoo.

 

Pretty interesting read on soccer fans in the US. They guy in the pic with the blue warm up a the red hat in the middle is awesome.

 

Honestly both teams could in theory benefit from it. Just throwing out numbers if RSL paid them $50k for the rights, it's likely far more than they'd make at the gate, and with a mix of $10/15 tickets being sold, you'd make that up just selling out half the stadium, plus throwing concessions on top of it. For the MN FO it's got to be better than losing the coin toss + whatever they made in the deal to play at the RioT. The only people that truly lose out are the fans in MN looking forward to the game.

System is stupid, but better than the old blind bid IMO.

 

Goal of the week voting
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/05/28/vote-att-goal-week-week-12
Doesn't feature Borchers stoppage time upper v finish?
What the hell!?!?

 

Borchers goal was cool, because, c'mon man, it was the White Rhino.

With that said, all nominations for GOTW were better.

 

Cooly taken shot by a defender into the upper corner for the game winner in the 93rd. Na, nothing good about that

 

When you add all those x factors it's a great goal, no question about it. Take away those factors and it's a sitter from 8 yards out. In my heart, goal of the week for sure , but you can't argue that the other candidates this week aren't all well deserved.

 

I finally had a chance to watch the nominees. I'd say Borchers was easily better than Berniers. You're talking about a simple flick over the keeper vs putting it top corner where the keeper has zero chance to get it. That being said, I voted for Angel, that was an impressive volley IMO.

It's far from a sitter. Hartman was positioned perfectly. Borchers hits that any other spot and it's most likely saved.

 

You realize that Bernier's goal was not nominated because of the simple flick over the keeper, right?

Maybe MLS should start "Assist of the Week"!

 

We've had that talk before and I wouldn't be opposed to it. Perhaps instead of 'assist of the week' it could be 'play of the week'. It could encompass an easier goal that had solid build up to it, or even a solid defensive play to deny an opportunity. But if you're going by straight 'goal of the week' Berniers is easily the weakest goal.

 

I'd also argue that Borchers is better than the KC goal (Sapong, right?)
that was some atrocious defending by the guy who was supposed to be on Sapong. He didn't go win the ball, he didn't go mark the guy, he just ran at his own goal and looked like a dumbass.

 

I would really like to see Borchers get a call-up to a national team camp. I wouldn't expect him to make the team, but a call-up to camp, I believe, is do. Then again, I am biased, so what do I really know?

 

Not much because you keep apologizing for you positions, you were correct in your original assessment of Sabo's play and yet after getting a little flak you backed off. Soccer is a great game because it is in the eye's of the beholder, I see Sabo as a great talent that has unfortunately let his play flounder to often in his career. Last couple matches have been better but over the course of his career, Sabo has been in my mind a disappointing player.
I agree Borchers should have been a consideration for the Nats, but unfortunately that was probably 3-4 years ago.

 

If Mr. C backed off his critism of Sabo, maybe he did so because there's really nothing to complain about?

He's currently averaging a goal every other game (0.54 goals/90 mins). That's very good for a forward in this league. You should ease up. In your post you went out of your way to criticize Sabo, even when Mr. C's comments have literally NOTHING to do with Sabo.