This is a done deal, right? Sac and Nashville? Personally I would rather see Detroit get it instead of Nashville, but I don't think they have a realistic shot with Ford Field as their proposed home.
Based on a quick google search, Detroit is a #13 media market. Sacramento #20, Nashville #29, and Cinci #36. Detroit's prospective owners own the Detroit Pistons and Cleveland Cavaliers. I think Detroit probably has a shot based on the size of the market. San Antonio is #31 and Austin #39. Surprised to see Tampa-St. Pete and Phoenix were larger markets than Detroit (#11 and #12 respectively).
Anytime I am five minutes from the Atlantic Ocean.....that is west. When I work from home, or have to work downtown in Boston itself (I commute by ferry of course), there is never a time when I don't see the big blue. Once it goes missing I think I have gone to far west.
Wonder how many former Detroiters live in Tampa and Phoenix now. THe migration has been steady for close to four decades now.
Well, it certainly doesn't help that SDSU has a competing proposal, but the SoccerCity proposal is 100% privately-funded and the SDSU proposal is not. So, why would there be any major opposition from voters to the SoccerCity proposal? They have to do something with the Qualcomm site regardless. It's going to cost the city a ton in maintenance and remaining bond payments if they don't find another use for that site. So, what's the rationale for voting no? Seems to me the SoccerCity proposal and all the private investment that would come with it would be widely supported. What am I missing?
Yep, been saying this all along. San Antonio was never among the top 4 favorites to get a team. They've always ranked behind at least 6 others. The narrative that Precourt is essentially stealing their bid by moving to Austin is just fodder for the SavetheCrew movement and/or for San Antonio to claim collusion and try to get a settlement out of MLS. I still have doubts about Austin being a good MLS market, but they don't "replace" San Antonio because San Antonio wasn't going to get a team.
Except that these things can change a lot in a relatively short period. How good any of the bids look right now could be very different from how good they look by the latter part of next year.
Keep in mind looking at media market size as a singular figure can be quite deceiving. Media markets can extend quite a distance and the further a household is from the city center, the less it is worth. Also: household incomes aren't equal across metros/media markets. Here's a list of markets without teams, excluding Riverside (LA) and San Francisco (SJ), by metro GDP: Miami (11), Detroit (14), San Diego (16), Phoenix (17), Baltimore (19), St Louis (21), Charlotte (22), Pittsburgh (24), Indianapolis (25), Tampa (26), Cleveland (27), Cincinnati (28), Columbus (30), Austin (32), Sacramento (33), Nashville (34), San Antonio (35), Vegas (36), Milwaukee (37).
Noted and Nashville is proof of what you're saying regarding how quickly things can change. But saying San Antonio might have emerged later is very different from claiming Precourt took their spot by potentially moving to Austin. He may have killed their future chances, but they hadn't yet emerged as a favorite as of now.
You included Columbus in your list of cities without teams. Not true.....yet. But on a serious note, you make a good point about market size. Five different sources will give you Five different answers as some only count the city itself whereas others count surrounding counties or even the full broadcast/media market.
Yeah. Helpful to have both Columbus and Austin in there for context though. Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, and San Antonio will make leaps up the overall list in the next decade. Austin most of all. Indianapolis and Columbus will grow more quickly than their MW/NE counterparts, but will still slide a bit as more Sun Belt cities pass them.
Judging from Lightning games I've been to, plenty of them. Though we've slowly converted/embarrassed them from showing up in Red Wings gear given the way we own them lately. Not totally surprised the Rowdies didn't make the cut since they never announced any other investors, but I think it's kind of weird to see Detroit jump the line when they really don't have anything to point to besides the money behind them.
But are a significant number of people really arguing that Precourt "took their spot"? Maybe so, but I have not heard that, especially given that Sacramento, Nashville and Cincinnati have been clearly ahead of them since before the Crw's potential move to Austin even came up. What I have heard a lot of people assert is that he has, in fact, "killed their future chances."
They're probably having trouble finding that old Kansas City Wiz phone number in their rolodex*. EDIT: *Rolodex (for our younger posters)
It seems to me that San Antonio's complaint would be that MLS wasn't negotiating with them in good faith, because they let San Antonio believe they were a contender (even if they weren't in the front of the line), when they weren't. If the Austin thing were public before SA started their bid process, it would have been nipped in the bud. Instead, SA has spent millions with no real chance.
The SDSU plan presented asks for no public money is my understanding though I admit I’ve not had time to read it in full yet. That and SoccerCity may not be asking for direct subsidy, but they will be purchasing public land at a steep discount. To many in SD that is tantamount to a public giveaway to guys who are being painted in the press as underhanded developers (in no small part due to their secret meetings off the books meetings with the Mayors office in the year leading to their project unveiling). Add in the NIMBY opposition to the dense SoccerCity project in a heavily impacted part of San Diego, the opposition to SoccerCity from SDSU and her vast alumni base, small stadium size complaints, etc... and SoccerCity is not a slam dunk at all even absent the competing plan. SDSU presenting a compelling plan just throws another wrench into the works.
Alexi Lalas said his guess is Cincinnati and Nashville. If Sacramento isn't seen as a "done deal" yet, then no one's safe
If Sacramento isn't a done deal yet, then Cincy, Detroit and Nashville have one foot already firmly planted in MLS, given 2 of those 3 will be in.
Have they though? The bids were due in February. The talk of Austin started months later, right? Plenty of time to look through the bid and say "nope, this just isn't going to work" and then explore other options. I've worked on evaluating bids on things before and sometimes it is clearly obvious that the bid package just isn't going to win very early in the process. Now, if there is an indication that MLS was negotiating with Austin even before the bid package was received then you have more of a case. But if it happened months afterwards? Much harder sell.
Are you kidding? This is MLS. With the shit they've been pulling lately, it wouldn't surprise me if out of the blue, they gave the two spots to Edmonton and St. Louis.
MLS is based on the East Coast. East Coast people have a bias against the West Coast. California already has 3 teams, one of which is not far from Sacramento. Nashville and Detroit don't already have teams in their states, while Cincy would soon be the only team in their state. I'm hoping Sacramento gets in, but I'm not convinced they will at this time.
Don't discount the possibility of the SJ ownership using its influence within the highest echelons of MLS to prevent it.