Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NASL' started by eclipse02, May 15, 2011.
In Chicago? Really?
In Dallas? Really?
More probable than the land needed for an MLS stadium yes.
In Chicago next (well a few blocks) away form the United Center there are a few empty plots of land, not sure if they are big enough for a small stadium or not, but it is right next to the Blue Line and the Highway in a poor neighborhood, a nice project to build up the area would be nice, but I would imagine investing money on a new soccer stadium would be way low on the list of city improvement projects.
So from 1% to 2%, based solely on size?
You have no idea what it takes to get a stadium - even of smaller size - built in the downtown area of a city like Chicago or Dallas, do you? That was my point.
This is a great question, and thanks for bringing it up. I would pick 1. try and compete in the same market.
I agree with you, although I would say it's interesting you mention Dallas. Being from Dallas, as well as being an FCD fan, I'm obviously biased. However, I think the market could easily handle multiple teams. It's just a matter of finding those investors willing to (probably) lose money the first couple of seasons, marketing, and getting a stadium. FCD does, I think, suffer from being so far away in Frisco (it's quite a drive, and not much around the actual stadium, which I believe is even north Frisco).
Oh, is that all? You get that that's hard enough when there's not another team with far more resources already in your market?
Figure I'll let @ElJefe deal with that one. He loves that discussion.
Is he the "they drive from all over for the Cowboys" guy?
I don't believe he'd be that simplistic or dense, so, I would guess not.
By "loves," you really mean "is completely beaten down by," right?
Take some B12 and give it one more good fight, would ya? There's a noob that needs it.
You new guys have some strange logic. Just trying to wrap my brain around this one, help me out. Do you mean the NASL, being division two, plays on a smaller field. Kind of like when you are playing U-10 and the goals are smaller? If so, shouldn't they only use smaller players? Heck, a team full of players with Messi's physique.
Otherwise, I don't see how a NASL stadium would be significantly smaller than a MLS team.
The urban stadium, another fan boy wet dream. When stadiums get built in the suburbs, it isn't because there isn't a piece of property big enough in town. It is about money. Why would an NASL club have it when a MLS club doesn't.
While you are at it why don't you open a smaller hamburger stand down the street from McDonalds. You know, that tiny lot where all the vagrants hang out. The city will be very thankful for the urban renewal.
A 6k stadium utilizing public parking would be smaller than a 20k stadium with it's own lot. Should I draw a picture?
Obviously, fewer seats=fewer parking spots=smaller footprint. That's what he meant. Which is reasonable.
However, second division vs. big city's interior = price of land and difficulty in getting it done = good luck.
I know what you were getting at, I was being facetious to prove a point. First, any NASL club should be shooting for about a ten thousand seat stadium if they are going to build their own. 10k vs 20k isn't a significant difference in footprint. If you give up all parking revenue by foregoing a parking lot or garage, then that is one more revenue stream you have eliminated. My point was that the primary problem with your concept is not space or proximity to a MLS club but rather money.
San Antonio's first phase is only 6,169 and its planned second phase is just 8,000.
Given that only a handful of second-division franchises in the modern era have ever averaged 10,000 a game for a season (Rochester, Portland, Montreal) and given the NASL without San Antonio averaged just under 3k a game (2,996), you'd be building a shitload of seats no one would be sitting in anytime soon.
To be fair, there might be options other than flat out building a new stadium - at least in some cities. Dallas has the Cotton Bowl, and with the right business plan and a little arm twisting, I think the city of Dallas would rethink its plan of overcharging the MLS team so much and might come in with something affordable. SMU has a stadium that might be usable - although probably pricey. So it IS *possible*. And not *completely* in a Jim Carey kind of way. Ultimately, though, no it isn't really possible in Dallas, and I'd think it might be a tough pull in Chicago as well.
Fort Worth, on the other hand....
But that is just looking at the stadium aspect. The real question is will you put more resources into marketing, sales and fan base development than the MLS team, because you'll have to in order to overcome the natural advantage the MLS team will have in terms of level of play, quality of facility, etc.
No, if an MLS team comes to an NASL venue - barring a team already at 8,000 to 10,000 a game and somehow the MLS team doesn't try to work with that team or buy them out - the NASL team needs to find a way to salvage what they can.
That being said, I don't see MLS going into many NASL locations without involving the local NASL ownership group. I think New York is a unique situation because of all the work MLS has done to get a true NYC team. Everywhere else, I don't see MLS just barreling in and running roughshod over an NASL or reasonably successful USL Pro team. San Antonio? Orlando? Even Atlanta? It takes work to get over 4,000 a game on a semi-regular basis, and an MLS team would have to put a lot of time and effort into building that whereas coming to an agreement with the existing team would be more economical.
Going back to Fort Worth, I do think that there might be similar soft spots in, say, the Inland Empire or Anaheim (if it is far enough away from the HDC - don't know LA geography well enough/going on the Dodgers/Angels-Kings/Ducks pattern) for LA, etc. Is there something like that for Chicago? Philadelphia? Houston? Maybe one or two other locations?
Boston, on the other hand - as long as Kraft is having his thumb up his (whatever oral cavity you'd prefer to imagine), maybe there is a move there for something like a USL Pro team... You're playing with fire a bit, but if it is an underserved market that is that big into sports (which Boston certainly is), maybe you can make it work? (Or even, make it work in the idea that Kraft buys you out and takes your fanbase/location/etc. to be the new Revs home?)
Why isn't there *something* in San Francisco? I get the sense that San Jose is too far away to really be impacted by a lower division team on the other side of that triangle....?
While we're at it, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis? Hell, St. Louis, Nashville, Memphis....
WAY too many locales to go into before you would need to go head to head with an MLS team.
What, to use the Cotton Bowl? The Cotton Bowl is MLS 1.0.
And I love how some people seem to think "a little arm twisting" is all it takes to make municipalities do what soccer fans want. I guess Kevin Payne hasn't been twisting enough arms. Maybe that's the issue. More arm-twisting.
MLS 1.0 - not completely disagreeing
Arm twisting - consider that the city has a 70,000 stadium that is basically used 2x a year now that the Burn, SMU and others have left, it may not be as difficult as you might think. The city was dumb to poo poo Lamar Hunt when they were trying to figure something out after taking control of the team, among other things at the time, and now you have the Cowboys and Rangers - the top two revenue teams in the MetroPlex - in Arlington, the Stars struggling along with a new owner and the Mavs having won the title in 2011 and then fell apart last year.
There have been random soccer games there, organized by who knows who, with random club teams playing (from Mexico, Poland or somesuch, etc.), to little success. I'm guessing a bit, but I'd wager that a steady tenant who would be a good partner would at least get a good listen to.
You are right, though, about the MLS 1.0 thing.
You have more than one? Disturbing.
Yes. Because we know that an NASL club would have so much more juice than MLS would. Piece of cake really. Why not Cowboys Stadium, instead of that rundown Cotton Bowl? A little sweet talk and I am sure Jerry Jones will realize what he really needs to be profitable is a NASL team drawing 3,000 a game.
Well, I was talking about Kraft, not me, but yes, meant "body cavity." Nice catch.
What is stopping Traffic selling the clubs as co-operatives to the community of their area? At least then, you have owners who actually care about the club..
Division two regs require a lead investor with a certain net worth. Rules out a cooperative. Your idea would be hard pressed to fund a NPSL club, a NASL team is out of the question.