Garber on FSC (Chivas vs. Toronto)

[ironhead]

Did anyone else catch this game on FSC yesterday (4/7/07)?

During the post-game show, Max Bretos interviewed Don Garber and inquired about MLS expansion. Garber didn't mention St. Louis among the list of cities who lie in wait. My immediate reaction was that he probably just didn't think of it on the spot, but he did mention several other cities - with yet another mention of the Pacific NW.

I don't know if I'm starting to get jittery and anxious for no reason - but I was wondering if anyone else saw this show and if they got the same impression?

I was still under the impression that STL is among the top candidates, and are just waiting for the Collinsville consultant group to provide their study, no? Beyond that, we're simply looking at funding for the stadium and, in which case, we are a shoe-in, right?

[timpcrk]

Maybe we're so far along that he doesn't feel he needs to mention us anymore. He doesn't name us as a "candidate" because we're something more and it would be foolish to put us in league with cities so far behind....eh, who am I kidding.

[Sport Billy]

I was still under the impression that STL is among the top candidates, and are just waiting for the Collinsville consultant group to provide their study, no? Beyond that, we're simply looking at funding for the stadium and, in which case, we are a shoe-in, right?


You make it sound so easy ;)

ps: Sorry you had to sit through Bretos and his ever-changing fake accent.

[stlouisfc]

I saw this and thought the exact same thing. After months of slowly building optimism, this is troubling....

But at the same time, we have to look at the facts. Three teams by 2010. Garber mentioned San Jose, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and the Pacific Northwest. Aside from San Jose, which is a virtual lock for '08 or '09, St. Louis is more qualified and has progressed further along the expansion path than every city on that list:

- Philly has already seen one potential investor crash and burn. They've got a new possible ownership group but have been hung up for a while on a stadium deal.
- Atlanta and the Pacific NW are both solid USL locations but they appear to have no investors lined up, nothing concrete, just vague speculation.

On the other hand, St. Louis has a well-known investor who has already sprung for a team for the new WUSA and very nearly bought an existing MLS team to move them here, and a probable stadium site with public funding, not to mention a rich soccer history and, in the words of another MLS owner, "more passion for soccer than any other place I've been."

Come to think of it, I'm not that worried.

[Sport Billy]

I saw this and thought the exact same thing. After months of slowly building optimism, this is troubling....

But at the same time, we have to look at the facts. Three teams by 2010. Garber mentioned San Jose, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and the Pacific Northwest. Aside from San Jose, which is a virtual lock for '08 or '09, St. Louis is more qualified and has progressed further along the expansion path than every city on that list:

- Philly has already seen one potential investor crash and burn. They've got a new possible ownership group but have been hung up for a while on a stadium deal.
- Atlanta and the Pacific NW are both solid USL locations but they appear to have no investors lined up, nothing concrete, just vague speculation.

On the other hand, St. Louis has a well-known investor who has already sprung for a team for the new WUSA and very nearly bought an existing MLS team to move them here, and a probable stadium site with public funding, not to mention a rich soccer history and, in the words of another MLS owner, "more passion for soccer than any other place I've been."

Come to think of it, I'm not that worried.


The problem/fear I have is that St. Louis is not a "market". There are 2 expansion slots left b/n now and 2010 (based on SJ having a God given right to the third for some reason.) :mad:

I think those two spots will go to the NW and SE. These are "markets" for MLS. St. Louis has no massive fan base to offer. It's basically regions over cities.

Again, this makes the league very "coast heavy" but they don't appear to care - that's where the population is.

I really hope I'm wrong - but I think I'm right. :( I am that worried

[nobody]

I still think it all comes down to a stadium. Right now, a St. Louis team has no place to play. Until that changes, St. Louis is on the outside looking in. Once a stadium deal becomes reality, St. Louis jumps right up the list immediately.

[jasontoon]

The problem/fear I have is that St. Louis is not a "market". There are 2 expansion slots left b/n now and 2010 (based on SJ having a God given right to the third for some reason.) :mad:

I think those two spots will go to the NW and SE. These are "markets" for MLS. St. Louis has no massive fan base to offer. It's basically regions over cities.

Again, this makes the league very "coast heavy" but they don't appear to care - that's where the population is.

I really hope I'm wrong - but I think I'm right. :( I am that worried

I may be wrong, but I don't think MLS really thinks in those regional terms. I think they follow the investment money. Just look at Chivas - it certainly doesn't help expand the MLS footprint to have a new team come along and play in the same stadium as an existing team, but that's what the I/O wanted, and MLS was happy to oblige.

To repeat what many others have said, I think it all comes down to a stadium. If Cooper can get one built, we've got a team. If not, we don't. I can't believe MLS would turn down an ownership group with cash in hand and a stadium on the way, in favor of chasing a terrible sports market like Atlanta.

Then again, maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.

[Z010 Union]

I agree. While national footprint is nice, $ and eager investors will ultimately be responsible for deciding the location, not geography.

[McGinty]

Yeah, as long as Cooper approaches the league with sufficient and money and a stadium, they will welcome St. Louis into the league.

Landing an MLS franchise (or even purchasing an existing franchise) is a long, arduous process, one that is so difficult that the league cannot afford to pass on a team that has accomplished this. I don't think the league would turn down Cooper in hopes of another market pulling everything off.

Plus, it isn't as if St. Louis doesn't bring anything to the table in terms of the big picture. The area is still known as a "soccer hotbed". Plus, Garber has spoken about the importance of regional rivalries, and adding St. Louis to the league creates an instant rivalry with Chicago and/or Kansas City (maybe even Columbus). Having away fans always improves the atmosphere of games, not to mention ticket sales.

MLS expansion is more of a race than a beauty pageant. The league may have chosen the 10 original franchises based largely on national footprint, but having a solid owner with a positive stadium situation is more important to the league's viability.

[krudmonk]

The problem/fear I have is that St. Louis is not a "market". There are 2 expansion slots left b/n now and 2010 (based on SJ having a God given right to the third for some reason.) :mad:

I think those two spots will go to the NW and SE. These are "markets" for MLS. St. Louis has no massive fan base to offer. It's basically regions over cities.

Again, this makes the league very "coast heavy" but they don't appear to care - that's where the population is.

I really hope I'm wrong - but I think I'm right. :( I am that worried
San Jose is technically still a franchise. Houston was the expansion team. It's also a proven success, but happened to be owned by a company that wanted the city to build them a stadium for free, so they took all their toys and went home to another city that hadn't even promised them a stadium, either. It makes tons of sense, I know, since it was the same company that built the ********ing Staples Center with their own cash.

Also, this "coast heavy" business has to go. Utah, Colorado, K.C., Dallas, Chicago, Columbus and Toronto are not on any coast. Houston is on the Gulf Coast, I guess, but I doubt you were talking about that one. I'm sure you people in the middle probably have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to national media overlooking you just as we feel about the east coast (I'll admit it), but sometimes it's unwarranted.

But I do hope you guys get a team so we can eventually beat you.;)

[Sport Billy]

Also, this "coast heavy" business has to go. Utah, Colorado, K.C., Dallas, Chicago, Columbus and Toronto are not on any coast. Houston is on the Gulf Coast

I'll give you Colorado, KC, Dallas, Chicago, and Houston.

But Toronto???? It's north of New York for Christ's sake - not on the coast, but definitely East.

Utah, while not on the coast, it is considered a western city while Columbus is an Eastern city (400 miles from the coast).

[krudmonk]

I'll give you Colorado, KC, Dallas, Chicago, and Houston.

But Toronto???? It's north of New York for Christ's sake - not on the coast, but definitely East.

Utah, while not on the coast, it is considered a western city while Columbus is an Eastern city (400 miles from the coast).
I guess I could bend on Toronto, even though it's Canada and thus not consciously "east coast" as that's mostly an American concept. Columbus, though, is on the western edge of a huge time zone. I'd say 400 miles is a considerable distance. SLC is not even on Pacific time. It's about 600 miles from the coast. Perhaps our viewpoints are dramatically different, since I tend to see a place like Sacramento as being inland and not coastal, but I don't think either of those places are culturally or geographically likened to their respective nearest coastal regions. Looking at the jump from market to market, east to west or vice versa, I'd say the teams are fairly evenly spread out right now.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Major_League_Soccer_Map_2007_Season.PNG/500px-Major_League_Soccer_Map_2007_Season.PNG

[Sport Billy]

Nice rebuttal, I see your point.
But I'm worried because San Jose is going to be announced sometime this summer.
That leaves two spots.
Top runners are probably St. Louis, Philly, Atlanta, Pacific NW, and Phoenix.
All of those except St. Louis are East/West oriented.

I just don't want the league to become East and West and the rest of the country ends up not carring.

[AndyMead]

Maybe we're so far along that he doesn't feel he needs to mention us anymore. He doesn't name us as a "candidate" because we're something more and it would be foolish to put us in league with cities so far behind....eh, who am I kidding.

Or... by not mentioning St. Louis, the St. Louis group can use that to put pressure on municipalities to get a stadium done.

"You have to help us, or we'll miss this golden opportunity."