Peoria Sports Complex is probably 15-20 minutes, depending, north/northwest of where the Cardinals and Coyotes play. I can get to PSC in about 20 minutes from my house on the north side and can get to U of P or Westgate in under a half hour. But, yeah, downtown isn't what people gauge things by, 'cause that ain't where people live. The population center is in the southeast Valley, somewhere around Tempe/Gilbert/Chandler. But much of the soccer is in the East Valley (Scottsdale, particularly). If you're looking for proximity to the most people likely to attend matches, Sun Devil Soccer Stadium was ideal (and the best D3 setup I've seen in a while). When it was in its full built-out mode (with the seats from the Phoenix Open before they got pulled because of the expense) in 2013, that was way better than any other place they'd be likely to play that currently exists. The oft-mentioned abandoned Greyhound Park would be a great location, too, just east of downtown, right off the light rail, tons of parking. But the city has been holding onto the land for potential runway expansion of Sky Harbor and only a former City Councilperson was a soccer advocate who wanted something done there rather than a runway expansion that's unlikely to happen (they're doing a half-billion dollar reno of the terminals at the moment). Scottsdale Stadium was a far better setup for actual soccer than Peoria (no matter which way they ran the field, and they tried both ways in Peoria), but parking is an issue when there's a big crowd (which there was on opening night 2014 and not after) and they seriously overpriced tickets. I went to a game at Grand Canyon University's brand-new stadium last week and it's fabulous. It only seats 2k permanently and supposedly another 3k on the berms surrounding, but that's not the biggest problem. It's not only a college campus, but a very Christian college campus. Welp, yes, they were mismanaged. They had serious financial issues during this season, from what I'm told. Peoria Sports Complex just underwent a huge reno and update for the Padres and Mariners, and it's a solid facility. But you're not going to get people to schlep up there from Scottsdale and Gilbert and Chandler to see what has been not very good soccer in a bad atmosphere in 106 degrees. Counting Phoenix FC (a different franchise), pro soccer has gone from ASU's campus (finishing at a youth complex on the north side when they ran completely out o'money the first year) to Peoria to Scottsdale to Peoria. They drew okay at ASU at first, but pissed off a lot of people and were basically bleeding out by the end of the first year. The first year all came together in a month, so it was amazing they got anybody to come to games at all. Then Scottsdale seemed like it was an improvement, but there's only so much you can do. I was told the Giants wanted the yard for extended spring training and baseball all summer, so they were not able to return to Scottsdale, so Peoria was the only option. I'm told that's not their preferred option and none of the other spring training sites seem to be interested, either. So you try to go back to ASU or you see if the stadium outweighs the other issues at GCU or you play in the 'hood at Phoenix College or you somehow come up with land and enough steel and concrete to put a Sacramento situation together somewhere in the next six months. I don't know what they're going to do. I know their new president is in some hot water and their front office is supposedly a bit of a mess. Yallop has been Yalloping, which means the team hasn't been very good. There's no real reason for optimism yet. This market has been tossed around as a "can't-miss" market by many here for years, I guess because of the population and the demographics and whatnot. But outside of when El Tri or one of the USNTs play here (or the occasional Liga MX team), actual soccer hasn't done particularly great things here. The heat's only one issue - I've only been to one game in the last four years outside where I said, "Holy cow, this is uncomfortably hot." 102 at kickoff with the sun dropping ain't that bad. 106 is a bit much and we can do way worse than that here. But I can't see anybody putting an NASL team here because you still have the exact same issues: there's no place to play and the market's actual week-in, week-out support for a club team of its own is still unproven. (Perhaps it's just been unexploited, but, hell, at some point, somebody has to go to games.) Anybody who decides to drop the coin to do it here halfway is insane. Unless you're going to go full-bore, operate at a very high level and spend (and lose) a lot on sales and marketing and a place to play, I can't see it happening. I just can't.
Shoot, they don't have the money to run ASL teams. You could run a team like this on <$100,000 a year (PDL teams do it), but I don't even know if anybody is capitalized to that extent. And they surely don't spend what money they have on people who know how to, you know, actually sell tickets and communicate and stuff. You can't just come up with 11 guys and roll a ball out there.
Oh, God, the ephemeral "done right" again. Its like "marketed correctly." As mentioned above, unless someone's idea of "done right" is "spending on infrastructure like Indy did and spending on players like Miami did," no, it's unlikely and surely not with someone who's currently planning an NPSL team. People say a lot of stuff when they're just starting out. It's good to be ambitious, but puh-leeze.
And they STILL don't know how to communicate. Did they think they were going to get two news cycles out of this by announcing a big sponsorship deal and not saying who it's with and saying "We'll keep you in suspense?" $100,000+ per team? That seems far-fetched. EDIT: Oh, wait. If I'm reading that correctly, it's $100,000+ per team across five years, or about $20k per year. That could be free uniforms and gear to sell. I doubt they're going to get checks for $20k per year. Not really a "game-changer."
I'm still surprised Phoenix Municipal Stadium never gets mentioned. Not sure what the ASU baseball lease looks like, but it has parking, is centrally located for the Phoenix metro area, and if you run the field along a sideline the seats look straight out onto the field Al Lang-style. I don't see the Arizona team surviving unless they get a long term lease somewhere.
Al Lang is a bit different in that they aren't patching over an infield, and trying to avoid moving the pitchers mound. Those two criteria dictate how the soccer field is aligned in a working baseball field
Muni is in a great location and has those amenities you mention. I was kind of hoping for that at launch. ASU's baseball home schedule runs through May and if they host postseason games, obviously it's into June. And they have a 25-year lease, which, while I have not seen it, supposedly gives them "full control" over the facility. Their baseball administration offices are there now, too, and it's basically their deal, top to bottom. I am not sure they would be interested in sharing. At least not under favorable terms. The last time a soccer team struck a lease with ASU was Phoenix FC in 2013 and it was supposedly so onerous, it drove the already-fragile team into the ground.
For those interested, my latest interview with Scott Taylor of FC Arizona http://www.americanpyramidblog.com/...the-sun-and-valley-scott-taylor-of-fc-arizona
Comparisons of other baseball stadiums to Al Lang don't really work anymore IMHO. Al Lang isn't a "working" baseball field anymore. It's pretty much transitioned into a soccer stadium, especially with the new stands built in right field.
We're comparing it to one of the few other former spring training baseball facilities out there, though Muni definitely has been reused as a baseball facility. The comparison's more of a, can this be reused as a soccer facility a la some of the older baseball stadiums out there?
Al Lang also has an ideal 90 degree configuration which allows for good sight lines. Many baseball stadiums lack that.
Serious question here: If a USL team wished to move over to the NASL for any reason, would they be allowed? I'm asking because I seem to remember something about a non-compete clause for the market existing in the USL franchise agreement. Would this entail the owner to go on hiatus or to a new market instead of opening up shop in the same location? I am not trying to start a conversation about the merits of why - as that has been beaten to death - more simply if it would even be possible.
I remember part of the fight in Oklahoma City was when Oklahoma City FC, the PDL team, had the conflict with Prodigal Sports on who would get a USL franchise. OKC FC then tried to start a NASL team but was sued by the USL since their PDL contract said they couldn't compete with the USL franchise that had been awarded to Prodigal. That non-compete clause was challenged in court but was never resolved when the OKC FC franchise in the NASL never developed. The current Rayo OKC, while involving some of the same people, seems to be independent of the former PDL organization so the non-compete would not seem to be involved. That is my memory at least. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. The take-away from all that would seem to me to mean that a PDL/USL team could not start a NASL team that would compete with a USL team. Probably what would have to happen is that the USL team would fold and then start a new NASL team presumably with the same name and colors. But the USL might still declare the franchise in that market to be active and try to prevent the owners from starting the NASL team. The odds are good that this would go back to court and there might be an actual resolution of what the non-compete clause entails and whether or not it could be enforced.
The Kitsap example may be instructive, as they're dropping "Pumas" for 2017 in favor of Kitsap Soccer Club. Supposed to be back to the Pumas after a year. In the event a USL team tried to jump to the NASL, I could see some similar arrangement.
As of 2013, the USL Franchise Agreement contained this language: During the Agreement Term....Franchisee shall not, either directly or indirectly, for irself or through, on behalf of, or in conjunction with any Person: (d) Permit the soccer team participating in the USL as the "Franchised Team" or another team that uses the Team Marks to participate in a Rival League (which, for avoidance of doubt, expressly includes Major League Soccer (MLS), Women's Professional Soccer (WPS), North American Soccer League (NASL), Nation (sic) Premier Soccer League (NPSL), Women's Premier Soccer League (WPSL) or Professional Arena Soccer League (PASL)). There's also a prohibition against owning, operating or having any interest in a team in a rival league, which would seem to make Bill Edwards' reported pursuit of the Fort Lauderdale Strikers not permissable.
The is assuming MLS2 teams have to sign the same agreement. Wouldn't surprise me if the agreement between the USL and MLS bypasses the USL Franchise Agreement completely.
That's a fairly reasonable assumption. But the chances of an MLS2 team then competing in MLS is not very likely, which is what the quoted passage specifically refers to and was intended to prevent.
Unless they waive that. Somehow, if it keeps the pressure on the NASL and increases the likelihood of the few attractive holdouts jumping over, I don't see that being a problem. #Rowdies owner Bill Edwards sitting with the USL's CEO Alec Papadakis & COO Justin Papadakis at last night's home finale. pic.twitter.com/3RTaigQ0Tc— The Unused ⭐ Substitutes ⚽ Show 💚💛 (@UnusedSubsPod) October 23, 2016
If you're the NASL Board of Governors, though....why would you approve an ownership application from someone who ( a ) owns a team in a (very) competing league and ( b ) just took that team out of your league? That would be like letting your new girlfriend still sleep with her ex now and then. #yaddayadda
IIRC the MLS2 teams were not required to pay the expansion fee either, which might suggest they did not sign/enter a franchise agreement with the USL.
Though their presence at all is because of the overarching MLS/USL agreement (which none of us have seen).