Sport Billy you make some good points. Although I am in Oklahoma City I can understand what you are saying. Recently OKC got its own NBA team and everyone had been in a fury since. Part of the lure for the team was city funded campaign to renovate their arena. It had the motto "we're a big league city." Many people put a lot of pride into their cities and want to feel good enough or big league. Otherwise OKC has a handful of minor league and college teams. While that may be disappointing for some, I don't mind. Some of my best sporting memories are related to minor leagues or D1. Also I know that a lot of potential investors in USL-1 were put off by it being a minor league. And that killed a lot of the momentum we had in a landing a team recently. However, some of these guys just wanted to make money and didn't strike me as much of soccer fans. On that note I gotta say that I like what dweissen had to say. I agree that a USL-1 club doesn't need widespread support. Just enough to survive and thrive in time. It's just like the AAA baseball team or AA hockey team we have here. Both play in new facilities and have ownership that have built the clubs over time. And for the record one of the owners of the AAA baseball team withdrew from trying to get an MLS side back in 2003/2004 when the baseball team came up for sale along with their new downtown stadium. For him it was a safer business move and I can't fault the guy. While any community or group of fans should present a united front to support a club or future club, they should also present all points of view. Also I've been told it takes at least a year to plan and build for an expansion USL-1 team.
FYI for non-StL folks, the Grizzlies I mentioned are an independent minor league baseball team that I'd guess have roughly AA-level talent.
Haven't heard anything lately, but I don't think they'd put things on hold. The last I heard from USL and others was that the league wants to have a 16 team first division soon. That means they'd have to keep expanding.
I say go Derby style. Birth of Soccer in America would be a great place to have two teams play and if location seems to be an issue, with one field either being too far from one side or the other, have one in each so people can go to the local one. Plus would make travel costs easier on other teams. One city, 2 teams. I know its a bit far-fetched but I'd love to see it happen. The growth of derbies in this country would be super cool. Plus I think St. Louis is the only place where 2 ownership groups have stepped forward.
Don't let the Orlando people hear you say that. Definitely agree with you, though. Having a pro derby here in STL would be a huge step forward for soccer in this country - not to mention just pure amazing in itself. ^.^
Your idea may have some merit, but I don't see ownership groups agreeing to it. They are too tied to the American franchise model, where they expect some sort of exclusivity in their city. I think derbies in the USL would be fantastic and feasible. Casual fans of even a USL 1st division club will only drive so far to watch the club. Imagine if like in St Louis or Orlando you had two teams one one each side of the metro area. Each could draw 3 or 4 thousand each. Plus those derby matches could be hyped up and draw bigger crowds. In Orlando I think it could work really well, because one club could be a Latin club and one not. Two different fan bases. Would be a very cool development, but I don't see it happening.
StL has two minor league baseball teams in roughly similar locations to Cottleville and Collinsville, and they both seem to be succeeding even with competition from the Cardinals. So I think that two USL-1 teams in StL would certainly work, but yeah, it probably won't happen. USL-MSL derby is still possible, though.
I don't know for sure about Cooper, but I know Glavin's certainly not against it. If you go way back to the first press release the Lions made (first post in the thread), it explicitly mentions Glavin would like to have a STL derby similar to the Old Firm.
Do it! Just do it! Soccer Capitol of America with the only Derby. Man.... I'd have to become a fan of one of those teams just because of it. I want a derby here but unlikely since Saputo has the USL rights to all of Quebec. .... sigh.... but honestly, I'd buy a Jersey for a team if there is a derby. Its just..... way too cool. Hopefully NYC can play the Red Bulls, technically they are the only current "derby" but I'm unsure how big that could get only meeting in the USOC.
I'd do it too. The jersey and the whole bit. I love derbies and rivalries all over sports. For example in Oklahoma we have minor league hockey teams in both Oklahoma City and Tulsa and they along with their fans loathe each other. If only we could replicate that in USL-1. What a dream.
Reeeeeeally late correction on the press release, but the Revs beat CP Baltimore using their reserves in the 2008 USOC.
Has anything more happened on this of late? I think a team in St. Louis would be a great rival for the MN Thunder until Milwaukee decides to take their heads out of the sand (or the indoor soccer park, as it were). More Midwest teams!
I suggested that for Atlanta, when we had the Silverbacks, in the event that we didn't get MLS, and got shouted down. I do think it would work, though, if the city was big enough and the teams were far enough away from each other.
I never expect to hear anything until November. The NY, Tampa and Austin announcements were, to my mind, unusual and surprising. Cleveland was more like what I expect out of the USL.
Yes, Cleveland is a good example of "the norm" when it comes to USL. In just about every way as administration goes.
I think having two USL teams would be a huge boost to both teams if it happened. (Assuming of course they are on opposite sides of the metro) Like SportsBilly has said, a lot of people will pass on a USL team because they will view it as minor league. However, if you have two teams in the metro, it would be a source of pride for the city and people would feel more inclined to pick a side. If there is only going to be one team in St. Louis, then for it to be truly successful then it needs to play in the city. Preferably downtown near the other sport venues. I believe one of the reasons Seattle has been so successful is that they play in the heart of their city. (There are obviously many other reasons) If the team, whether its USL or MLS, plays on the fringe of the metro, it will never be as successful as a team located in the city could be, because the people from other sides of the metro will always be biased with the driving to nowhere attitude.
So with (2) St. Louis Teams, maybe the league could look like 5 years from now (assuming Montreal is MLS bound in 2-3 years): Rochester Puerto Rico Charleston St Louis (1) St Louis (2) Cleveland NY Baltimore Austin Tampa Minnesota Carolina San Antonio Orlando Miami That isn't a bad league....Nice markets. Travel isn't so bad. The longest travel I guess would be Minnesota to Puerto Rico. I wouldn't mind seeing a second team in PR in Mayaguez (sp?) if they could support it. Maybe you could add another team in Canada (Edmonton) or maybe Bermuda (where did they go. Did they fold?).
Have you ever been to Toyota Park? It is West of Cicero, a long way from downtown Chicago, and it works well.
I would pick Ottawa over Edmonton. And Bermuda is playing in USL-2 IIRC. As for stadium location, I say: screw it, I just want a team. I don't think the stadium location will affect how well the team does, really. Considering all the anti-WPS response there's been outside of the Womens' Soccer forums, I find it hard to believe (though I admit I would love it if) Athletica outdraws a STL USL-1 team, and there are currently USL-1 teams surviving fairly well on less attendance than Athletica is currently getting.