DC United 0, Montreal Impact 0 | 2019 MLS Match Recap https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2019-04-09-dc-united-vs-montreal-impact/recap Power outage: Without stars, DC United, Montreal Impact play to 0-0 draw https://www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/dc...s-dc-united-montreal-impact-play-to-0-0-draw/ Will stable rosters, lineups become fashionable in MLS? https://www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/are-stable-rosters-lineups-becoming-fashionable-in-mls/ Rapids striker Kei Kamara has the fifth-most goals in MLS history https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/09/kei-kamara-rapids-mls-scoring-records/ Major Link Soccer: Toronto FC tried to sign Arjen Robben https://www.sounderatheart.com/2019/4/9/18301580/toronto-fc-tried-to-sign-arjen-robben Sounders contract signed, 15-year-old midfielder Danny Leyva eyes next goal: an MLS start https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...lder-danny-leyva-eyes-next-goal-an-mls-start/ Sacramento council unanimously approves soccer deal, gets immediate praise from MLS https://www.sacbee.com/sports/mls/article229023294.html MLS contingency taken out of version of Indianapolis soccer stadium bill https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...gency-taken-out-of-version-of-indianapol.html
Sacramento seems too have checked all the boxes but I can't see MLS passing up Saint Louis. With Indianapolis, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Carolina, Detroit, Louisville, Las Vegas still in the mix I have a hunch it's announced that 32 will happen with Saint Louis being team 29.
If Sacramento does check all the boxes and then still gets shot down that's gotta be another black eye for MLS, no? Otherwise their courting of other cities rings hollow and they should just say who they want and work exclusively with those markets. Especially seeing as Sacramento is the "bird in the hand" option punting in them for St. Louis at this point would be, IMO, not just cruel and unusual punishment but stupid business. Tap STL later while you continue to build that scene from the ground up, but for now reward to community that has comparably bent over backwards to meet your criteria. Says I, anyway.
it would be downright disingenuous if MLS passes over sacramento-- AGAIN!!- the franchise now ticks all the boxes IMO- they have jumped through ALL the hoops-saying NO would be an embarrassment and a slap in the face... another san antonio in the making the smart thing to do would be to award both Sac and St Lou as new franchises #28-29 to start in 2022-- thus aiming for a city for #30 to start in 2023 and let the new race begin
"...economist Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis: 'Why pick one when you can pick both?'he said. MLS is in a growth mode, he said, for good reason. 'The more markets you are in, it creates more eyeballs for the sport, which leads to better TV and streaming deals, and better corporate partnerships down the road.'" Isn't it because the longer they make these bids compete, the more they sweeten the pie? And I'm not suggesting that's MLS greed - they're mostly just making sure the conditions are ripe for success. Soccer stadium. Billionaire investor. Tax rebates for neighborhood rehab and such. Do we think MLS will avoid adding both teams because of the optics for all the other competing cities/bids? They don't want Phoenix/San Diego/Indianapolis/ Detroit/Charlotte and Tampa or whomever saying "Eh... MLS is just gonna let us all in anyway."
You omitted the fullness of Rishe's argument, as cited in the Sacramento Bee. Immediately preceding your quote, the paper reported: He said his theory is based on the fact that the league likes both cities, both cities have mounted solid proposals, and the league likely will want to expand to 30 teams, not just 28.
Blame Kei BREAKING NEWS: I am not playing in anymore snowy weather Colorado 🥶🥶🥶 so I have asked for the game to be cancel tonight. YOU’RE WELCOME. Stay home #NetflixAndChill 🤗😘 pic.twitter.com/Oa3z7st74V— KEI KAMARA (@keikamara) April 10, 2019
Well, unfortunately the Rapids can only count on 1--maybe 2--bomb cyclones a season to prevent anyone from watching its games Winter Storm Wesley? No one fears that name. Let us change it to the Dread Storm Roberts...carry on.
http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/mr/mr44/en/phone/index.html Atlanta ranked 10th for attendance in world. MLS 8th.
They are not going to avoid adding anything. Not anytime soon, anyway. To be on par with other pro leagues, they need at least 30 teams. 32 more likely. If you throw out playing every team every year, 36-40 gets easy. The optics of brand new stadia in good locations packed with fans all over the place is the optics they want. St. Paul. Cincy. Nashville. Austin. Columbus. Miami. Sacramento. St. Louis. Phoenix. That is 30. With Detroit, SD, Vegas, Indy, Raleigh, Charlotte, SA, Tampa, Louisville & some others in contention. I do not think everyone gets in, but there will be more than 3 more.
NYCFC didnt check all the boxes and its beginning to look like they never will. Austin checks exactly none of the boxes. Zero. Everyone knows the game here.
I personally don't see MLS getting bigger (in terms of total teams) than the Big 4. Nobody is bigger than 32, I don't see MLS eclipsing that threshold unless we go to a full blown MLS1 and MLS2 in a closed system of Pro-Rel, which would probably not happen until my unborn children are old enough to legally drink.
We'll see about NYCFC in the next few months. I know you have Austin with a fire that burns hotter than a thousand suns, but which boxes are you suggesting they aren't checking off?
Well, clearly they wont even WANT to bring in everyone who qualifies. It creates a shortage, as well as leverage against recalicitrant local governments who may balk at being extorted down the road. They need to maintain a small pool of places ready and eager to take over an existing team. "Well, if you dont give us what we want, Raleigh is standing by with a stadium and a check book open" Fortunately for them, 32 teams will still leave a few prime places on the outside looking in. The question would seem to be how long before MLS taises the ante. $200 million is easoly the next step, and $250 is jot outside the realm of possibility. In fact, frankly, with this kind of competition, why are they still selling so cheap? As for stadium optics, theres a good reason why theyre putting Cincy on TV so much despite them not having a single player anyone has ever heard of or anything like a history or a national following. MLS just wants optics. Anything else is gravy.
There are only three: 1) Deep pockets owner - they dont have one. Precourt is probably the single poorest owner in the league. Garber demanded more billionaires in Sacaramento. Austin doesnt have a single one. 2) A history of support for lower level soccer - NASL/USL teams have been toing to Austin to die for a decade 3) Downtown stadium plan - theirs is 12 miles out in the middle of nothing The better question is just which stated MLS criteria DOES Austin meet?
Breakfast tacos? Seriously, I was in Austin this past weekend (/shakes fist at the sky for canceling the Capitol 10k) and had the opportunity to go to The Domain. The fact that the parking garages there are part of the plan for people to park to go to Austin FC games at McKalla Place is one of the funniest things I have every read.
So, what's your reply to "Why pick one when you can pick both" Sacramento and St Louis? What do you think Garber's reply would be? "Keeping a steady hand on the tiller so competitors will keep juicing up their bids?" Maybe that's obvious, but I don't hear that theory stated by fans and pundits watching the situation. I hear expert, even academic "MLS watchers" like this dude above saying "Why pick one when you can pick both?" Or is everyone expecting this is just what's going to happen once/after the bidders have sufficiently stepped up?