Commish Says Portland in in 2011 if...

[PDXTimbersFC]

According to an article written last night by a member of the Oregonian staff there was a city email saying the commish would grant Portland a spot in 2011 if it can get the financing deal done.

See the article here: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/beavers_coowner_sees_portland.html

Ready, set....discuss!

[Eckstoss]

According to an article written last night by a member of the Oregonian staff there was a city email saying the commish would grant Portland a spot in 2011 if it can get the financing deal done.

See the article here: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/beavers_coowner_sees_portland.html

Ready, set....discuss!

Speaking objectively, that's nice to hear, but I'd be careful about what we make of that. I wouldn't have expected something that concrete, but at the same time I think Garber says this to every city. This kind of soft commitment is cheap for him to dish out because there's nothing in writing.

We need to get the funding approved - which seems likely - while ALSO continuing to make the case for Portland in general.

With approved funding for a great stadium, I think we are ahead of Vancouver and St. Louis - these are identically sized media markets but have other issues of their own. However, Montreal and NYC2 would continue to be tough competitors given the shear size of their markets.

[Sport Billy]

According to an article written last night by a member of the Oregonian staff there was a city email saying the commish would grant Portland a spot in 2011 if it can get the financing deal done.

See the article here: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/beavers_coowner_sees_portland.html

Ready, set....discuss!

Until it's an e-mail from Garber, it means nothing. St. Louis was told over a year ago they would get ateam and that was stated on MLS's wibsite. Seattle had a letter from MLS telling them they would get in, but it took 8 years.

I think we are ahead of Vancouver and St. Louis - these are identically sized media markets but have other issues of their own.


What is an issue for St. Louis. - I can think of a couple, but what are your thoughts?

[Lu Grego]

This is just Garber playing games like he did with St. Louis and Philly. He is just trying to put pressure on Portland to get their funding together. Why would he make such an announcement before the deadline anyway.

[texgator]

You guys should stay in the USL, you'll have better chances of winning international games that way. LOL.


Good luck....a Portland-Seattle rivalry in MLS would be sweet.

[Sport Billy]

BTW, the thread title is very misleading -

It should be Paulson Tells City That Garber Told Him Portland Will Be In In 20011 if ... the city gives him $120 million.

[Hierarchyfive]

Garber is like a used cars salesman with his comments.

However, I do believe that if we can get the approval for the Beavers park and renovations that we will get in.

[KdaleB]

BTW, the thread title is very misleading -

It should be Paulson Tells City That Garber Told Him Portland Will Be In In 20011 if ... the city gives him $120 million.

Here's the quote from the story:

"Major League Soccer's commissioner has said Portland would get an expansion team in 2011 if the city built a soccer-specific stadium, according to a city e-mail."

So your title would also be misleading...

[Sport Billy]

Here's the quote from the story:

"Major League Soccer's commissioner has said Portland would get an expansion team in 2011 if the city built a soccer-specific stadium, according to a city e-mail."

So your title would also be misleading...

Sorry - you are correct. It's only $85 Mil. I some how counted the baseball stadium twice. I apologize.

But, the e-mail isn't from Garber or anything. The e-mail is from the city reporting what Paulson said about what he claims Garber said. The title and the quote you give both make it appear that the e-mail was from Garber.

[PDXTimbersFC]

This is true that the thread title is a little misleading.

And I do agree that unless it is in writing with Garber's signature I will not take it to heart. Either way Portland still has a promising shot as long as said public financing or some other agreement between Paulson and the city comes to light.

[Kayak]

Whatever, I’ll take it as good news I’m hoping for Portland St. Louis expansion. I had banners for CCS but had them confiscated for being in the wrong section of the stadium. I would have fought with the security guy more but it was either that or enjoy the game.

[KdaleB]

But, the e-mail isn't from Garber or anything. The e-mail is from the city reporting what Paulson said about what he claims Garber said. The title and the quote you give both make it appear that the e-mail was from Garber.

Do you have particular knowledge of that e-mail?

The story is kind of vague... was it an e-mail from the city to the writer that was part of some sort of interview? Was it some sort of internal communication that was FOIA'd? I'd guess the former. Without further knowledge of the exact wording of the e-mail, I think we're all just throwing WAG's against the wall. I know that Garber has been to Portland several times; I'm sure that city leaders have had some sort of direct communication with his office in this process. There have been plenty of opportunities for a statement like that to get to the city leaders without getting washed through Paulson first.

All that said, even if Garber communicated that directly to the city in some form (whether verbally, in an e-mail, or even in a letter) it isn't worth a thing unless its in some sort of contract (which it isn't).

[Eckstoss]

Do you have particular knowledge of that e-mail?

The story is kind of vague... was it an e-mail from the city to the writer that was part of some sort of interview? Was it some sort of internal communication that was FOIA'd? I'd guess the former. Without further knowledge of the exact wording of the e-mail, I think we're all just throwing WAG's against the wall. I know that Garber has been to Portland several times; I'm sure that city leaders have had some sort of direct communication with his office in this process. There have been plenty of opportunities for a statement like that to get to the city leaders without getting washed through Paulson first.

All that said, even if Garber communicated that directly to the city in some form (whether verbally, in an e-mail, or even in a letter) it isn't worth a thing unless its in some sort of contract (which it isn't).

We do know the exact wording as the email was actually posted on MLS-rumors.net.

It was a city official reporting that Paulson had told him that Garber told Paulson that Portland would get MLS if the Stadium was worked out.

I honestly don't doubt Garber said that to Paulson, but completely doubt how genuine or significant that statement is. He says that to every city, so I think we can just ignore the comment entirely.

[Sport Billy]

Do you have particular knowledge of that e-mail?



If you follow the links in the first story, it is in there.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhall/2008/10/081008.logsdon.email.0820.PDF

That e-mail is from Dave Logsdon, Spectator Facilities Manager, recapping a meeting he had with Paulson and Don Mazz.

Here is the exact line:

"MLS Commissioner told Merritt that if Portland solves the venue issue, we will get the next expansion franchise( team# 17) and would start in 2011. MLS intends to award next two franchisesin early 2009."

So, you have Logsdon's summary of Paulson's summary of a conversation he had with Garber.

[Sport Billy]

So that everone is one the same page:

Paulson's Proposal to the city:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhall/2008/10/081008.paulson.proposal.PDF

The city hired consultant Public Financial Management to review Paulson's Proposal.
Here is PFM's review:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhall/2008/10/081008.pfmgroup.study.pdf

This report is only a week old and is referred to as a "smell test."

In addition to saying the Paulson's proposal is incomplete, they are calling for many follow-up activities or "next steps".

I cannot see completing "feasibility studies", identifying "additional revenue streams", identifying "funding sources", crafting a "risk profile", crafting a "comprehensive funding plan" AND getting this all reviewed discussed and voted on by the politicos in time to be awarded a team for this round.

[Fenerbace]

So that everone is one the same page:

Paulson's Proposal to the city:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhall/2008/10/081008.paulson.proposal.PDF

The city hired consultant Public Financial Management to review Paulson's Proposal.
Here is PFM's review:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhall/2008/10/081008.pfmgroup.study.pdf

This report is only a week old and is referred to as a "smell test."

In addition to saying the Paulson's proposal is incomplete, they are calling for many follow-up activities or "next steps".

I cannot see completing "feasibility studies", identifying "additional revenue streams", identifying "funding sources", crafting a "risk profile", crafting a "comprehensive funding plan" AND getting this all reviewed discussed and voted on by the politicos in time to be awarded a team for this round.

But the city is working on a schedule that allows them to vote in January and MLS is working to accomodate that schedule so that they can incorporate the city council's decision into their consideration of each city.

There is nothing new here and just because the city is still gathering the information they need to vote in 2-3 months doesn't at all mean there is any risk to the schedule that the City, Paulson and MLS are working together on.

I understand the desire to see otherwise from other candidate cities, but there's no problem in the fact that the city is still gathering information.

[Seph]

But the city is working on a schedule that allows them to vote in January and MLS is working to accomodate that schedule so that they can incorporate the city council's decision into their consideration of each city.


MLS's "schedule" has always been flexible to suit their needs. There is still a strong possibility of one team being announced at the Cup this fall, which would leave Portland fighting for the one remaining spot.

Even if the league waits, Portland is cutting it awfully close. If anything at all delays the Portland council's decision even a little, the window of opportunity is gone.

[Sport Billy]

But the city is working on a schedule that allows them to vote in January and MLS is working to accomodate that schedule so that they can incorporate the city council's decision into their consideration of each city.


Unlike getting into the PNW market (Seattle) and getting into the 4th largest market (Philly), none of the candidate cities really offer much over the competing cities - save NYC. So, I don't see MLS waiting around very long for city X if Cities Y & Z are ready and MLS knows it could bring it city X the following year. (Assuming of course that MLS actually wants XY&Z)

[Fenerbace]

Unlike getting into the PNW market (Seattle) and getting into the 4th largest market (Philly), none of the candidate cities really offer much over the competing cities - save NYC. So, I don't see MLS waiting around very long for city X if Cities Y & Z are ready and MLS knows it could bring it city X the following year. (Assuming of course that MLS actually wants XY&Z)

Completely disagree on what you think MLS would do as far as the schedule based on:
1) Paulson's statements that he is working very closely with MLS and there is no problem with a January vote schedule
2) when its a matter of a couple of months on what is a major expansion decision, MLS has absolutely no reason to make a premature decision before every city has played out the key details of their plan.

Seattle had 18 months to prep between announcement and MLS kickoff which was seen as plenty of prep time, while a March '09 announcement would allow for 2 years between announcement and an April '11 kickoff, so there is no real time pressure on MLS.

When you have all the leverage, the basic negotiation tactic is to continue to let competitors play off eachother. MLS has every reason to wait and let (pressure) all the applicant cities to make their best case.

So even if you think Paulson is lying and not working with MLS on the city vote schedule, you can't really believe MLS won't take it's time to really see what the options are - especially when Portland's last remaining detail is a scheduled city council vote that would make or break the bid.

[Sport Billy]

Seattle didn't have a stadium to be built or modified.

Philly, was named in January of 2008 to start play in April 2010.
They still haven't broken ground. It's going to be close.

My point is that if two cities are ready and MLS wants those two cities, why wait for a city that isn't ready when you can bring them in the next year?