MLS or their media partners might not like Sac or Cincy or see them as a sexy pick but they might not have a choice. Miami is dead, as is St. Louis and both San Diego and Detroit might be tied up with stadium sticking points for years. MLS gave themselves a deadline and not making that deadline looks bad on the league especially if they have ready made cities Sac, Cincy, Tampa, San Antonio ready to go now. I think North Carolina and Nashville are not just yet and Indy and Phoenix are probably nots.
What in the world makes you think Detroit will be tied up for years? Wayne County is going to make a decision on their jail in the next month or two (maybe 3 I guess, but surely not more than that), either finishing the already-started structure or going with Gilbert's plan. Sounds like one of the big sticking points is that the county wants guarantees from Gilbert regarding how quickly it'll be done. The last thing they want to do is wait. So Detroit will know soon enough whether they'll get the jail site, or if they have to go with Plan B, which will likely be near the new Red Wings arena.
What makes you think San Diego plan will be tied up for years? If it passes the vote in November it's happening.
If the MLS brass said no to playing at Toyota while expanding was ongoing (if that's possible) ... there's Heroes Stadium right next door, the Alamodome, and a few other locations that could easily serve for a season to season and a half for the stadium to be expanded. That wouldn't be a problem, at all. OH, and SAC hasn't been "MLS READY" or "BUILT FOR MLS" since 2004/2005 .... There's a huge difference between "building" and "expanding on already built" ... and the city/county already own the land/stadium here. Now, why would the city/county partner to buy the stadium with an expressed intent/plan to work with SSE to bring the MLS here? "The stadium agreement is a firm step in pursuit of raising San Antonio's pro sports profile," Councilman Ron Nirenberg said. "We now have our marching orders to work together — the county, city and business (community) — to deliver an MLS franchise for San Antonio"
holy crap........that's not gonna go well. Do you got a link for that? I don't see it anywhere right now. That would throw San Diego off the rails. However if they stick with what is currently out there, theyre fine. They cannot deviate from that though I keep preaching it.......but keep an eye out for Raleigh and Nashville in the rear view mirror. Some of these heavy candidates are gonna keep shooting themselves in the foot.
I dont see St Louis as dead yet. However, they are likely out for spots 24, 25, and 26. Their best hope is for 27 or 28. They need to pull an Orlando City and decide to pay for their stadium instead of the city/county. If they do this, they will move back to the front of the line. Sacramento is still the most ready to move up. Cinci needs to get their own SSS plan in place. If they do this, they are a top contender. Detroit has too much money and powerful owners involved to not get a spot. The real question is when. San Diego looks really strong at this point. Tampa also looks strong. My only concern is that the team will be in St Pete and I wonder how much fan support they will actually get. San Antonio, I havent really heard anything new from them in a long time. I dont consider Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, or Indy to be strong candidates at this point.
I've touched on this before, but ownership has stated have two sites in mind for a possible SSS in Cincinnati. The reason the details were not disclosed was it was part of the expansion bid meaning only FCC and MLS know the details. Given the resources we have and success we've enjoyed thus far the money and political connections are there. If MLS awards a 2022 spot or a 2020 spot with ability to play at Nippert for 2 years I think we are able to make that timeline. My guess is 2022 is more likely given MLS demands, which is fine by me.
And you won't, whether it is going poorly or well. Holt and SSE prefer to work privately. The organization is well-funded, competent, connected, and quiet.
That's incorrect. The stadium is being paid for by the ownership group and SDSU and is projected to cost $200m. The public vote is about allowing the ownership group to buy the land (without opening the development to competing proposals) and develop the parcel without going through the usual entitlement process. The group doesn't even have to do this, they secured enough petitions to proceed only pending a city council vote but are allowing this process to eliminate any accusations of backroom dealings and such. The council seems to be generally supportive and the project has polled well with the public. The main source of opposition is rival developers and possibly SDSU who are probably more interested in receiving a land grant.
Yeah no. The public is being asked to approve the private $1 billion dollar development plan in Mission Valley, including a $200 million privately funded stadium. The public is not being asked for $1 billion.
He's incorrect. The plan includes $1 billion worth of private development including the $200 million private stadium and $40 million toward a privately funded public riverpark. But there is no request for a penny of any public funds, never mind $1 billion worth.
Yes, if you read the article it's as we mentioned, it's a public vote to approve the FS Investor's private stadium plan (which the FS group is asking to be put on the ballot). Not a vote to provide the MLS group with $1 billion dollars. And the vote is within MLS's timetable, per MLS, and will only require 50% approval to pass. Which seems very doable given the level of support the MLS group has received to date getting over 120,000 signatures from San Diego voters in support of the measure. The FS group seem very confident of its passage given that there is no public subsidy involved.
I hope FCC ownership can get it together quickly. Your fan support is truly amazing and would be a welcomed addition to MLS.
People may be sleeping on Phoenix. Biggest question is how much money does Bakay have in order to finance an MLS team. Having a few celebrity owners helps, but MLS wants billionaire ownerships or groups whose combined assets add up to over a billion. Also can Bakay expand his stadium? If both of these are yes, then Phoenix's market potential puts it at the top of the list imo. It is nearly as well-positioned as Atlanta was. I also like the name, but they drastically need to improve the crest. Not nearly as MLS-ready as Minn Utd's crest was.
Phoenix would also fill a geographic hole, just like a team in the Carolinas would. I see the next 3 teams being Tampa, Phoenix, and Detroit. Sacramento would get the final west coast slot and Miami, Cincinnati or Nashville would get final east coast slot. Then MLS will digest the new teams for a year before putting a call out for the 29-32 expansion slots at $250 million each.
This is what I mean when I talk about market potential being similar to Atlanta. If MLS is looking to fill underserved regions, then this is a prime location. No other expansion bid is as well positioned geographically since no bid came out of Las Vegas. Carolinas is nearly as good. Raleigh and Charlotte are both well positioned, but only one would be chosen should they go there.
Well, Phoenix would be forced to start an academy, pulling all the players from the Arizona/New Mexico area. This would help the USSF by expanding the visible talent pool, and might convince some young players to play for the US instead of Mexico.
It's a legitimate concern. Is Phoenix's MLS group planning to build an indoor or retractable roof stadium like the Cardinals and Diamondbacks use? If not I'd presume their plan is a non-starter for the league.
Phoenix Rising says they will build a climate-controlled stadium. https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2017/02/15/phoenix-rising-mls-expansion-usl-diplo#