That's why I said it. I'm actually surprised he sold the rights to FSI but maybe it was because his buying of Everton was a sure thing. Since that fell through I could see him doing wonders in MV.
Moores was very involved with the convention center expansion that died recently so now maybe he has the time to rethink MLS.
Just got an email from SoccerCity saying there will be a press event on Monday at the San Diego Polo Fields in Del Mar about "What's next." North County huh.
The transition has officially begun. SoccerCity to launch campaign today to get MLS to wait until Nov. '18 to announce final expansion spots— Kevin Acee (@sdutKevinAcee) July 24, 2017
Good luck with that. Meanwhile the NASL team hasn't even announced it's name yet and the one established California team they'll be playing in San Francisco already finds itself under siege from USL (with the announcement of a new San Francisco USL side moving in).
I don't care if it's a long shot and only Team 27 or 28, but I'm very happy they aren't giving up! Out of the 11 other competing markets, thankfully there are a handful with issues as well. I'm sure they'll have a couple of good or decent bids by the end of 2017 to choose from, but hopefully they decide to wait out for the next two long enough for SD to have a chance. SI's Strauss and a KSC blogger with updates on all things MLS Expansion.
I think it's very obvious that the San Diego City Council and SDSU will be do anything to kill the Soccer City project. And with all the opposition to the project you have to believe that MLS has to feel very concerned about waiting and getting involved into San Diego city politics. Because everyone knows even when the vote passes the voters, that the project will face years of laws suits before they can ever put a shove into the ground. By then MLS in San Diego will be long forgotten.
Not sure that's really an accurate picture. That's the beauty of the initiative process, it sidesteps most of the things people can sue about. Just look at Inglewood, lawsuits didn't delay them at all. Same would be applicable here if the vote passes in 2018. As for the city council opposing the project, I'm actually not convinced they do. They opposed the special election, and with good reason seeing as the city had just passed an initiative that was supposed to curtail special elections. But I'm not convinced they oppose the project on its merits, particularly if SDSU can be brought into the fold. What they didn't want, was for SDSU to be left out to dry, which so far they have been due to their own incompetence. Once they have a president in charge and the university can actually negotiate with Stone they might be able to get somewhere.
This is one of my biggest problems with the USL. They seem to have one goal in mind to destroy and put the NASL out of business and control the lower levels of the "American soccer pyramid" (which the USSF pyramid is a huge joke) without any regard for the good of the game. I am convinced that they are just a bunch of corporate raiders and money grabbers. The USL goal to build a 40 team league is ridiculous. What ever happened to the idea of soccer leagues following the International model of 18 to 20 teams in a single table, which is what the NASL is doing.
Agree with this 100%. I think most of the city council were just being spineless, didn't a few who voted against the special election actually speak in favor of the soccer city project? All and all this is good news the only other alternative was they drop out so at least they are still fighting. Will now be interesting to see if anyone else comes forward with a proposal that can offer less density, more land for SDSU, yet still be privately financed and viable financially. Good luck.
It doesn't work in the US. We're too big of a country for lower level leagues to have a single table. USL's model is the right one, regionalizing the lower leagues. And I've no issue with USL putting NASL out of its misery at this point. When the best NASL can do is limp along with teams that shouldn't exist in the first place like OC and SF Deltas... they need to be taken out to the woodshed. Hell they should have died last off season but no one wanted to be the guy holding the penalty check by being the first to pull out of the league which would have triggered the final collapse.
Yea I have no qualms with USL and actually hope that NASL and them can play nice and build a strong DIV2. A DIV3 for a nation our size should have close to 60 clubs but I'll be happy with 40 in two conferences
Didn't see anyone link to this. SDSU has come out with their counter plan for the Qualcomm site which would include a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jul/25/sdsu-in-talks-with-mayor-city-council-over-fate/
So, what's their (business) plan exactly, copy SoccerCitySD bid and finance it with fantasy money or hoping for a give away by the city or developers? Here's hoping to common sense and if necessary a forced compromise between SDSU and FS (should MLS still be on the table). It just makes sense.
Yea this whole affair is infuriating. They literally released a copy of the SoccerCity plan without any financial details. Their plan with almost certainly require direct taxpayer money and they are leaning heavily on their "higher education" platform with a nice blurb about the NFL tossed in for good measure. Pathetic.
Its similar but not exactly the same. The density of the SDSU plan is much less as they have more space dedicated to class rooms and student housing. All it will really take is for FSI to say they are ok with ceding more land to SDSU.
Yep, basically FSI needs to prove they're in this for more than just the development, but for the soccer team. They're not going to make money on the land deal with more land ceded to SDSU. If they are ok with that, then they're really in it for the soccer. If not, then they were just using the soccer to get a land deal as they've been accused of.
I don't disagree with the above, but SDSU should not just rely on freebie tickets from SoccerCitySD, the City and the residents etc.
I don't think its that black/white. I think its entirely possible that they desperately want the soccer and need the revenues generated from the land deal to make the soccer component function the way they need it to. The more that FSI cedes land/potential revenue the more they will be to have to generate that revenue from somewhere else. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some sort of "SDFC" branded pay to play youth club sprouting up around town in addition to their free academy if they have to make even more concessions to SDSU.
They shouldn't, but they seem like they're going to. And they'll try and sell it as being for the good of the region education wise. It's not a terrible angle to take coming hat in hand to the public.