USL Pro expansion news, rumor and wishful thinking.

Not exactly...
I think a little background might be good:
We are always talking on BS about growing the game "organically". OKC FC may actually have done that. A few years ago two soccer clubs (North OKC Soccer Club and Edmond Soccer Club) apparently both got tired of going to tournaments out of state and not being able to compete with larger soccer organizations. So, they got together and formed OFC, Oklahoma Football Club. This was a combination of the two clubs for the purposes of competing more successfully at the regional youth level.
It has grown since then, and finally was at a point that they wanted to test the waters on a national level. So, Oklahoma City FC was formed. They actually fielded a women's team last year, and were quite successful.
So back to the NASL/USL thingy:
What what I know, the plan is for Brad Lund and Sold Out Strategies to still operate OKC FC, in the PDL.
Sold Out Strategies will ALSO operate a team in the NASL, as well.
They have not said for sure yet what they are planning to name the NASL team. My assumption was OKC FC, since the grass roots support has already been built for that brand. It's very common to see kids wearing OFC shirts around town. Plus, all the OKC FC shirts, jerseys, , scarves, etc...
If nothing else, the USL group is facing, IMHO, a HUGE uphill battle for relevance against an already established brand. Of course, they're not new to that scenario. They used to own a HUGE minor league hockey brand (The OKC Blazers which by the way was ran by Brad Lund until Bob Funk Jr. was made an Exec by his daddy) and decided to piss all over it by folding the team and bringing in a "New, Different, Better" team. Apparently they just assumed that all those loyal, die-hard Blazers fans would just come on over and support this NEW team, and forget that they just got pissed on. Well, the numbers don't support their theory. I was a multi-season STH for the Blazers. I LOVED the Blazers. We didn't go to a single barons game this whole year.

 

Kenn, I think you missed the first part of my post where I acknowledge the realities of the free market and competition. I simply expressed a desire to see a structure that might work better, just like I wish I could reshape the landscape of NCAA conferences. Yes, we know the USSF has a clear hierarchy, but the organic nature of launching teams is what leads to the unfortunate infighting. I do disagree with those that assume "derbies" have to be within one city, look at the Pacific Northwest or rivalries within the I-95 corridor. Sure, baseball has two teams in NYC, but there's a much richer history. And sure, some cities have the size to accommodate multiple teams, but for smaller markets, I think it would make sense to match league with city size and focus on one viable franchise depending upon the market. Yes, that's not going to happen due to legality, free market rules, etc. But the point of sports banter is to sometimes daydream about how we'd structure leagues, run clubs, etc. The realist in me knows this is all competition, the idealist wishes Oklahoma had one strong team and no infighting.

 

I'm pretty sure he got it.

I think his problem - and mine, too. Is that your self described fanatasy wish list 1) is annoying and 2) just reduces the signal to noise ratio.

It has no relevance to the the fact at hand, nor legal precedent. You admit as much. So it's really just as much thread pollution as fan art jerseys and team names are.

I've called for BigSoccer to realign the D2/D3 forums before, maybe I'll go make that request again.

The ability to separate out the adult conversation from the fan/fantasy stuff is what makes the MLS forums work.

I don't think there's enough traffic to subdivide the NASL/USL stuff separately, but I do think a D2/D3 N&A, D2/D3 General two forum setup with active moderation to keep the groups of posters with different expectations would really help things out.

 

That, and ego.

I didn't say anything about derbies.

Exactly.

 

Okay, that was a little harsh, even for me.

Hax is not a clinically brain-dead fantasizer as so many are. I see your point, I just wouldn't have made it quite so strongly unless it was in reference to a prole or a Cosmos necrophiliac.

 

Wow, I wrote two sentences about a fan(tasy) sentiment, then a response to Kenn acknowledging that it was simply that and tried to steer things back to the realities in play. I'm sorry if that's annoying or you consider it pollution, either way I'm not sure it justifies the name calling, but if you feel like you've flexed your muscles at my expense, good for you.

 

Well its a type of toy. If you are just purely looking at investment, professional sports is not likely to be the venue where you are going to put your money in and get the best return you can get. But you still want to operate it as a business so that you don't lose money if possible and you can turn it into a self-sustaining toy that you don't constantly have to dump money into.

 

Don't you dare have any wishful thinking in a thread like this!

 

Hardly.
My point has been (and will continue to be) that the NASL players we had playing here in 1981 started club organizations in the 90s which blossomed into the unique market we have here in 2013.
Our proposals to MLS in 2003 and 2006 were superior to the larger market down the turnpike from us in OKC.
Ask Mark Abbott.

 

Maybe they will go to NPSL after all the dust settles with the lawsuits.

 

You should be glad you have the AHL team rather than the Blazers right about now. The league the Blazers were in is circling the toilet.

It's also infinitely better hockey (i.e., you're actually watching some guys who will make a career of it in the NHL).

 

Re: the NPSL: It may not be the greatest soccer league on earth, but it's far better than nothing.

 

Let's go back to the origin of all this: the split itself.

Prior to the split, the USL President was one Francisco Marcos, the founder of the league. Under his presidency, USL would accept pretty much anyone who walked through the door to get their expansion fees. There was no due diligence done on the applicants, as long as they paid the fees they were in.

And in most cases, they were out very quickly. As we know, the revolving door of clubs in USL has been a massive problem. Evenutally, USL was put up for sale (owned by Umbro/Nike) and the Team Owners Association, a group of USL teams headed by AC St. Louis' Jeff Cooper at the time, offered to buy the league themselves. Instead they were sold to a company named NuRock in what appeared to be a shock move. Pissed off at the whole situation, the TOA left and formed their own league.

Yes, they were direct competitors to USL immediately. Yes, they attempted to lure non-TOA teams like Rochester and Charleston to join them. But in the end, they were justified in doing so. USL was absolutely horribly run at the time and, outside of the deal with MLS, USL has been run in pretty much a similar fashion. Except this time, they are actively targeting NASL markets to undermine their efforts and have failed at every chance they have gotten. This despite the fact that USL has gone in an entirely different direction from NASL. USL is aiming to get soccer teams to fail, hurting the growth of the game. NASL, by splitting, was doing so in order to pursue greater success, helping the growth of the game.

 

Re: The issue of teams splitting support: Barring vindictive scheduling of the entire home slates against each other, couldn't somebody support both teams? The only time they'd play each other might be in the Open Cup and minor league soccer tickets aren't that expensive.

 

I highly doubt that USL (which is in the soccer business), is trying to hurt the growth of the game. They're just trying to control it at the minor league level.

 

It's not like it's either "investment" or "hobby." As you say, a "business" that can be self-sustaining (or take on acceptable losses) is a third possibility. The fact that very, very few lower-level sports teams get sold for more than the owner paid or put into them makes "investment you hope will pay off later" a wildly optimistic scenario.

As Moses said, "Do you want to golf, or do you want to **** around?" The people who just want to **** around with this usually wind up being crappy owners. Anybody who thinks they're going to put a bunch of money into this and somehow, after a period of time, get it all back and more when they sell the team to someone else is likely to be a crappy owner. I'll take the business person with realistic goals and ideas who hires people with experience and lets them do their job and who doesn't panic when game two doesn't sell out over the other two. But that's just me.

 

To be fair, that would be two. Two chances. San Antonio and Tampaish.

They were doing this in order to pursue greater success for themselves, partially (indirectly helping the growth of the game, fair enough), partially out of spite and vindictiveness because their guy (who turned out to be a guy you're glad you didn't do business with) didn't get to buy the league. And one of the guys who led the charge (Selby Wellmann), who was on about things as petty as a rental-van deal, didn't even stick around long enough to see the "split to pursue greater success" achieve anything at all.

The rest of your post was largely correct. Just a couple of points there. Please let us not paint Traffic et al as Patron Saints Of The Game, either.

 

This is true. Looking at the NASL now vs end of 2010, NASL is getting stronger and starting to get on stable ground. My only issue with USL-Pro is the fact it went with the petty threaten to sue if you don't drop out. I just pettiness in my opinion.

 

The biggest fear/problem I have isn't about NASL being right or USL being right.... its about the obvious scramble to secure markets and the concern that either NASL or USL might get an itchy trigger finger and give the green light to ownership groups who don't deserve it just to get into the market first....

 

But see, thats what Bob Funk and HIS group kept telling us:
Better hockey
World Class Hockey
Blah Blah Blah

The bottom line is, nobody cares! The Blazers averaged > 9,000/game in a AA non-affiliated league in the best years, to around 6-7K in the worst years. Then Bob Funk et al decided that OKC needed "better" hockey. And in 3 years the Barons are averaging 3K for "better", "World Class" hockey.
I'm just afraid that these geniuses are going to do the same thing to soccer

And I would propose that one of the reason the CHL is not doing well is BECAUSE OKC isnt in it anymore. Seriously

 

What was so important to you? The name Blazers? The specific business organization known as the Blazers? The lack of an affiliation?

If it was the "non-affiliated" part, I have some bad news for you: Outside of maybe the SPHL, non-affiliated minor league hockey probably won't be around in five years.

 

If you count OKC, that would be three. And they should count, they were competing for use of the same stadium and the USL organization is taking the NASL one to court to prevent they ever play a game.

Oh they certainly aren't Patron Saints of the Game or even entirely competent*, but they are trying to build success for themselves in a way that helps the game. USL's goal is having certain clubs fail in order to gain success for themselves, which hurts the game overall.

*If you think about it anyway, almost everyone responsible for the split is pretty much gone anyway. Outside of Traffic and the Rowdies ownership, is there anyone else left in NASL who was around during the split?

 

Well, sometimes it is pettiness and sometimes it's just business.

I do believe we live in an overly-litigious society. That said, the courts are a remedy, and to act as if none of us - in a similar position - would avail ourselves of opportunities to protect our businesses is slightly ridiculous.

Without knowing the facts of this particular case, I would just say that in general, if you have a contract and you think you should just let a breach of that contract slide in business "for the good of the game" or some other such high-minded ideal, that's nice, but that ain't how America works.

And if you had a business and had skin in the game, you might very well feel exactly the same way. And people on the outside might very well consider you "petty" if you used the rules of the system to protect your interests.

 

But it hasn't failed yet.

I don't have a problem with counting The Battle of Oklahoma City as number three, but you said they've lost every time. This battle has just begun.

You could say that.

But isn't that business? I wish we lived in a world where unseemly behavior in pursuit of business gains wasn't the norm, but it is. Pro sports isn't unicorns and glitter. And even though we like soccer, it's not immune to business. (Not that I believe there's no element of spite in all this - I do.)

At the time of the split, the TOA was Atlanta, Carolina, Miami, Minnesota, Montreal, St. Louis, Tampa Bay and Vancouver.

Boris Jerkunica was involved with Atlanta then, wasn't he? The Wellmanns are gone from Carolina, Traffic had Miami (and has Ft. Lauderdale et al now), Minnesota was the Thunder at the time and those guys are gone, Montreal and Vancouver are in MLS and Jeff Cooper is no longer on the scene.

So it's Traffic, Nestor and Company and Jerkunica. My guess is they have bigger fish to fry than worrying day-to-day about competition from USL and it seems like they've gone on to do better things with most of the teams they're adding, so, fair enough.

But my point at the time was that these guys were unlikely to revolutionize DII soccer, and that's been largely true. Some of the gains - like better ownership - have been byproducts of the regs that USSF put in place (and good for them for doing so, we needed them).

 

It wasn't the lack of affiliation. It was just the team itself. OKC LOVED The Blazers. I can't explain WHY, it just happened very organically. And then the Funk group seemed to just sweep all of that aside. Another interesting tidbit: Brad Lund was the GM for The Blazers. He then moved on to be CEO of Express Sports, which was owned by Bob Funk Sr. After being there for 17 years, he quit in 2008, I believe. This was less than a year after Bob Funk JR came on as VP. Hmmm..
"Daddy, buy me a hockey team!"