USL1 advertising in Barbados?

Actually I think their trying to advertise the brand on a more national scale

 

Personally, I think it's either recruiting or advertising. By watching the stands I could tell that the advertising wouldn't be much especially since the game was on ESPN classic during the Euro in Barbados. Really makes no sense to me.

 

think miami fc advertised during the mexico vs belize game in houston too. if only the rowdies had one.

 

There were 4 signs for a "USL-1 Team Owners Association", 2 for Traffic (Miami FC's owners) and one for each of 10 clubs: Atlanta, Austin, Carolina, Miami, Minnesota, Montreal, Portland, Puerto Rico, Rochester and Vancouver. Charleston was not included (on purpose?). I bet Traffic got the signage for nothing, since they were putting on the match. Don't think it was simply a promotional stunt. Some kind of independent movement by the USL-1 owners? Hmm...

 

Maybe we should check the amount of google searches that read somethihng like "USL-1" after the game.

 

The boards are somehing that Aaron Davidson, Miami FC President and President of the Owners Associaton, told me he was going to do. I thought he was just joking since he said it somewhat flippingly. USL-1 owners are looking to raise the image and level of the league for next year. Possibly even a name change. They are talking about it as a relaunch. They say they have big plans since Nike is now the majority owner of the league. These plans are so big that small market teams like Charleston may not survive in USl-1. With the exclusion of Charleston it has to make you wonder. They must not be members of the owners association. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to talk about this but since the boards are there I feel it may be OK.

 

How do you know him?

 

He's the President of my local team and the Miami Ultras have a close relationship with the FO.

 

Will there still be a USL-2 for the smaller markets/teams, or is Nike focusing all the pro efforts on USL-1? If so, any word on a potential new D3 league? I'd heard rumors that the NPSL was interested in one?

 

Also, don't forget the Nike/USNT connection.

 

I'm not sure. All we've talked about is USL-1 and their plans that relate to Miami FC. I'll ask around.

 

I always thought the Charleston Battery were one of the more successful teams in the league. The have a nice stadium, nice web-site, etc. Have things changed in the last few years? I thought this was exactly the type of market USL1 wants to be in?

 

Not that media market matters the same way in USL-1 as it does in MLS, but if you check this list, Charleston is by far the smallest market in USL-1. Same on this list.

But I don't see that it's necessarily a problem. If they have figured out how to afford traveling to Vancouver, Montreal and Puerto Rico, then they're good.

The USL is clearly looking at slightly larger markets, but as long as Charleston's books are good, I don't see them in any danger. Has someone else heard something different?

 

From what I've heard around here, The Battery as no intention of leaving USL1. Fiancually, they have broke even and even have made a slight profit over the last couple years.

They have made alot of advance at the stadium (geothermal heating, installed several large solar panels,) and taken alot of "green" initatives. Ticket prices can still be had for $8 and haven't risen signifigantly in a long time.

The owner group have money (primaray owner, Tony Baker sold Blackbaud Software in 2002 or so and made $250Million, retained 14% of the company, which went public in 2004. His precentage equated into 9,000,000 shares. Not sure what the vaulue of the stock is now but it was worth around $25 a share, you can do the math. He also retained ownership of the building that Blackbaud uses and leases them to them for quite a nice sum of money each yea and owns a few resturants, hotels, and some prime realistate around Charleston.)

but the owners are astue buisness people and set a budget that is realistic. the one thing I think that would drive them away from USL is if they went Single Entity. They are traditionalist (many born and raised in England) and want the control over there own players and club.

I personally dont see the Battery leaving and not sure I would read too much into the fact that they didnt have a board. It proably came down to that they wanted to charge each club "x" amount for the signage and the Battery didnt think the cost vs. return was worth the money.

 

US soccer fans who couldn't wait to see if the US B team could hold onto an 8-0 aggregate lead against Barbados? I mean, I'm sure the deal was set before the US won the first leg, but what kind of an audience do you really think they got?

You want to raise the profile of USL-1 within the United States, how about advertising in the United States?

If those things are still there for anything in the semifinal qualifying or the hex, great. But I can't imagine they got a lot of exposure Sunday.

And maybe it's just me, but "USL-1 Owners Association" .... didn't they used to call such an arrangement a league?

 

That's what you get when teams are customers of a league rather than the league.

 

Charleston is also sponsored by Umbro, so it would be a conflict. Our team is also one the better financially backed teams in the league. I know ouir owner has butted heads with the Miami guy and chose NOT to be a member of the owner;s association. Why wouldn't you want your first place team in there?