OK for MLS

[Pyro]

Continuting MLS's puzzling involvement in OK:
http://espn.go.com/soccer/news/2002/0828/1423900.html

[kenntomasch]

The thing that hit me on that one was:


"(Lamar) Hunt, who also owns the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, attended the meeting for the MLS and said the league has narrowed its search down to seven or eight cities for its 2006 expansion."

"its 2006 expansion", as if it's a fait accompli that it won't be until then, or that there'll be a league after the TV contracts/funding runs out?

I know 2003 is out, but 2006?

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
The thing that hit me on that one was:



"its 2006 expansion", as if it's a fait accompli that it won't be until then, or that there'll be a league after the TV contracts/funding runs out?

I know 2003 is out, but 2006? According to information Mr. Segroves posted in another thread (can't remember which one) Hunt made a statement to the effect that they'd like to add 4 new teams by 2006.

Subtle, but different.

[Minnman]

Well, 2004 was highly unlikely under any realistic scenario. That leaves 2005 as the earliest possible date. 2006 is the league time horizon right now: it's the end of the current TV contract and of the investors' stated "guaranteed" commitment to the league.

[Laramie4OKC]

It's only going to take a year to build an MLS soccer stadium as proposed for Edmond, Oklahoma.

I'm hoping that MLS can bring in at least two teams by 2005.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by Minnman
Well, 2004 was highly unlikely under any realistic scenario. That leaves 2005 as the earliest possible date. 2006 is the league time horizon right now: it's the end of the current TV contract and of the investors' stated "guaranteed" commitment to the league.

That's what I mean. There's no guarantee past 2006, so why would you bother with a new team in 2006? Or even 2005 for that matter?

Chicago was announced on April 9, 1997, and played its first game on March 21, 1998, though they already had a stadium in which to play. If you had a place to play, you could realistically ramp up and play in 2004 (as long as you hire people like Chicago hired and not like Miami hired).

[kasai]

Oklahoma Laters should be the name of the franchise..... This way fans can differntiate between the Sooners and the new soccer club.

MLS should spread out its expansion over a few years. Maybe 2 teams in 2005 or 6. And then maybe 2 more two years later.

Until there is a team in San Diego, I think the MLS should just go ahead and keep expanding.... LOL

[jamison]

Originally posted by kasai
Oklahoma Laters should be the name of the franchise..... This way fans can differntiate between the Sooners and the new soccer club.


Leading to the unfortunate anit-mls bumber stickers : Rather sooner than later

Which would lead to the retaliatory pro-mls sticker better 'Laters' than never

I have a bit of a hard time believing Oklahoma City will somehow be a boon to the league. No disrespect intended, but I want to avoid another tampa/miami situation where we start a team and have to fold it a few years later. And you could argue those markets both had more going for them than Okc. Hey, if they can build a stadium, get 15k per night to a match and make money, I would welcome them with open arms. I do, however, have a hard time believing that they deserve it more than Rochester, or for that matter Philidelphia. If they are really talking about adding 4 teams over 2 or 4 years, both Rochester and/or Philly could be included, but there are other cities (St. Louis leaps to mind) that would seem a more natural fit for success.

If they can get a purpose built stadium and have hunt behind it though, they've got a good shot.

[Sachin]

All this deserves a team crap:

No one deserves a team unless they are willing to pay for it.

So if you don't have a spare $100 million lying around, than just shut you ass.

Sachin

[NACIONAL]

Originally posted by Sachin
So if you don't have a spare $100 million lying around, than just shut you ass.

Sachin

i couldn't agree more! ;)

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by Mike Segroves
Or are the Freemasons, Luddites, Tri-lateralists, Rosicrucians, International Jewish Bankers, and other assorted secret societies and Illuminati conspiring to only expand MLS into places where it will surely fail because they're not traditional soccer hotbeds.

It's Radical American Feminism. But you knew that. ;)

[bright]

Originally posted by Sachin
So if you don't have a spare $100 million lying around, than just shut you ass.

Sachin

I can't. Someone slipped me some ex-lax!

Seattle .... Sounders .... Seattle .... Sounders ....

for 2006, of course. And Paul Allen has $100 million lying around, somewhere, that he might be willing to "liquidate".

;) ;)

Good luck to Oklahoma City. I really like the plans the stadium design firm drew up. And I know some people from Oklahoma City. They don't live there anymore, heh, but I hear it is a nice place. And a lot bigger than most people think. There will be a good rivalry with Dallas.

I like the tack that MLS is taking, now. We hear a lot about new stadiums for the current MLS teams, and we have MLS people actively encouraging potential expansion cities to build stadiums. We can't expect 100% of these possibilities to come to fruition, but I am very happy that they seem to be aggressive.

Of course, everyone in MLS plus all these potential expansion cities have stadium rumors. Poor San Jose has none. Maybe they are going to be moved? heh.

- Paul

[superdave]

Originally posted by Mike Segroves
Arguably you can't say that Tampa or Miami had better situations.
Hey, some people can argue anything. I mean, you'd look like a fool comparing the situation in Tampa to what is under consideration in Oklahoma, with the Mutes' lease being the beginning and end of the discussion. And comparing Horowitz to these guys would be the beginning and end wrt Miami.

But you could argue it, if you're really in the mood for that.

I've always had an involuntary urge to throw up everytime I see a post that says "I think city X DESERVES a team."
You and I can have our own little vomitorium.

The only city that "deserves" a team is Columbus, based on their pre-MLS season ticket buying. And they have a team already.

PS...this is extended to discussion about which nation deserves to host a World Cup.

Or are the Freemasons, Luddites, Tri-lateralists, Rosicrucians, International Jewish Bankers, and other assorted secret societies and Illuminati conspiring to only expand MLS into places where it will surely fail because they're not traditional soccer hotbeds.
Lay off the Rosicrucians, man. Just back off.

[USRufnex]

Originally posted by Sachin
All this deserves a team crap:

No one deserves a team unless they are willing to pay for it.

So if you don't have a spare $100 million lying around, than just shut you ass.

Sachin

Oh, boy, another predictable round of bs from veteran bs posters...

So, if some multi-millionaire paid for a team to move to Reno, Nevada and nobody came to see the games, would they deserve a team?... well, gee, in your messed up world, YES...

Does NASL fan support "guarantee" success in MLS?... obviously not, as TB and SJ reminded us (although I think SJ supported the worst team in MLS for the first few years and got virtually no credit for it)...

And, yes I believe Cleveland Browns fans deserved a team even though none of those fans had $100 dollars lying around in loose change underneath the sofa cushions...

Last time I checked, you didn't have to have $100 million to post opinions on this site... and that's exactly what they are... opinions.

YOUR LUXURY SUITE WITH MINI-BAR IS NOW SERVING AT THE VOMITORIUM, MR. SEGROVES...

GEEZ, guys... why do I think Seattle deserves a team? Well, because a stadium was built with the league in mind and the city had some of the best fans in the NASL... yes, St. Louis IS STILL a "soccer hotbed" and has been for a long time... did they have a well supported NASL team? No. Do I think fans in Minn/St.Paul and Seattle deserve teams 100 times more than fans in Dallas and KC based on those NASL days... YOU DAMN BETCHA I DO!... Do I think teams in Portland, Tulsa and Rochester have a better chance of success than cities with fans that have never had/never wanted a team... well, yeah... it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it whether I've got a cool $50-mil to plunk down or not...

and, by the way, Tulsa had a serious season ticket drive before MLS started and the major sticking point was the narrow astroturf at Skelly Stadium... MLS now has the attitude of "build us a stadium or we'll take our marbles and go home." Combine this with that huge franchise fee and is it any wonder there many potential I/O willing to foot the bill...

[jmeissen0]

you fail to recognize that there is no established fan base anywhere for mls to move to or to demand that a team should be there


such notions have already been proven as having no basis... we don't have a soccer fan base for mls anywhere... it must be built

by allowing in people with only stadiums for soccer (not necessarily sss's) then things will be a bit better off as they will be sized more appropriately, have a large enough field, grass pitch, control of revenue streams and have owners that are willing to go after the fans as they just built a freaking stadium for them

besides, i'm sure an etrance fee would be mostly negated if an i/o brought a new stadium into the league

an i/o is going to build a stadium where they believe they have a good chance at making money... they aren't going to spend that kind of jack in the middle of nowhere

[ElJefe]

Originally posted by Mike Segroves
And if I hear about another city (St Louis, Tulsa, San Diego, Seattle, Portland) that will be a guaranteed success because of their great soccer history dating back to the NASL and how they are a "hotbed of youth soccer", I think I'm going to puke. If any of these cities had the grassroots soccer support and shadow owner/investors, it would stand to reason that these wonderful metropolis' would have teams by now, wouldn't they? Or are the Freemasons, Luddites, Tri-lateralists, Rosicrucians, International Jewish Bankers, and other assorted secret societies and Illuminati conspiring to only expand MLS into places where it will surely fail because they're not traditional soccer hotbeds.
[sniff]

That was beautiful, man.

[ElJefe]

Originally posted by USRufnex
yes, St. Louis IS STILL a "soccer hotbed" and has been for a long time... did they have a well supported NASL team? No.
For such a soccer hotbed, St. Louis has seen an incredible number of pro teams go tits-up from lack of support.
Do I think fans in Minn/St.Paul and Seattle deserve teams 100 times more than fans in Dallas and KC based on those NASL days... YOU DAMN BETCHA I DO!...
Spare me the musty stories of twenty-year-old attendances. What matters is the here and now. And here and now, Dallas "deserves" a team far more than either Minnesota or Seattle. Or maybe I'm not seeing something in those 2,000-person attendances in either place that you apparently are.

But if you want to talk about irrelevant teams from dead leagues, let me remind you that there's a soccer team in Dallas that's about to start its 18th consecutive season. I believe that's something that neither Minnesota nor Seattle nor St. Louis can claim.

[USRufnex]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElJefe

For such a soccer hotbed, St. Louis has seen an incredible number of pro teams go tits-up from lack of support.


Did I say THEY deserved a team? Read the fine print... or is that too much to ask?



Spare me the musty stories of twenty-year-old attendances.


I will remind you of it anytime I feel like it, Burn boy...


What matters is the here and now. And here and now, Dallas "deserves" a team far more than either Minnesota or Seattle.


You're entitled to your opinion... I'm entitled to mine?... on the subject of the other city I'm dissing, why KC and not StL?... oh, I forgot... Lamar, anyone?


Or maybe I'm not seeing something in those 2,000-person attendances in either place that you apparently are.


well, as a matter of fact, you're not... people in Seattle and Minnesota know the difference between steak (NASL) and hamburger helper (A-League).


But if you want to talk about irrelevant teams from dead leagues, let me remind you that there's a soccer team in Dallas that's about to start its 18th consecutive season.


So. you've decided that Dallas's USISL years WERE ACTUALLY RELEVANT?!?... you REALLY want to compare amateur/semi-pro teams that paid players about $50 a pop and lump it in with MLS teams and that "irrelevant" "dead" league...
[/b]

I believe that's something that neither Minnesota nor Seattle nor St. Louis can claim. [/B]

Would they even WANT to?

the 80s and 90s-- Dallas Tornado folded (1981: 4640 per game avg att), Dallas Americans begat the Dallas Express begat the Dallas Mean Green begat FC Dallas became Dallas begat Inter-American FC begat Dallas -Ft Worth Toros begat Dallas Rockets begat Dallas Kickers... sounds like something out of Genesis or Levitcus to me...

Of course we in Oklahoma had the Tulsa Tornados, Tulsa Renegades, Tulsa Roughnecks (updated for the 90s), OKC Warriors, OKC Stars, OKC City Slickers (my personal fav)...

I think I've had problems accesing attendance figures for your proud 18 year tradition because: IT SUCKED!!!

It sucked 20 years ago as the Dallas Tornado... it sucked 15 years ago... it sucked 10 years ago... it sucked 5 years ago as the Burn and it CONTINUES TO SUCK AS WE SPEAK...

Thank you for reminding me of your proud tradition of Dallas soccer and how much both your fans deserve a team...

Forgive me if I've left out any of your previous incarnations of vaguely professional "F.C.'s"...

[VioletCrown]

Originally posted by USRufnex
It sucked 20 years ago as the Dallas Tornado... it sucked 15 years ago... it sucked 10 years ago... it sucked 5 years ago as the Burn and it CONTINUES TO SUCK AS WE SPEAK...

Thank you for reminding me of your proud tradition of Dallas soccer and how much both your fans deserve a team...

Forgive me if I've left out any of your previous incarnations of vaguely professional "F.C.'s"...

I'm wondering if y'all might take this conversation to the Border Rivalry thread that will be opened just as soon as OK lands an MLS team?

And I do believe that Jefe was referring to a certain INDOOR soccer team with the '18 years' comment...

[soccerdome]

Originally posted by Laramie4OKC

I'm hoping that MLS can bring in at least two teams by 2005.

Agreed. And hopefully in smaller market areas where MLS teams wouldn't have to compete as much with, oh say, MLB and NFL. I like the sound of a team in Tallahasee..........