Meh. Don't be sorry for that. If those towns aren't willing to support an MLS club, forget them. There are cities and organizations vying for and competing for those rare opportunities to grab a club, and Tampa and Miami have the gall to cough theirs back up. Forget them.
i live in athens and i will definately be making the trek to the new park at least a couple of times next year.
Meh. Cubs? Losers. At least Chipper hasn't sneezed his back out. At least the Braves have won since the Great War. You live in Athens? Are you a student or citizen?
My best friend from high school is a student there, too. He used to live in Crestview, Florida, before he moved to Missouri and actually...I have no idea why he's at UGA. I'm sure he explained it to me at one point or another, but I've forgotten by now. I also don't know how he got residency. So yeah.
To be fair, with the losses MLS sustained early only two men (Anschutz and Hunt who at one point had 9 of 10 teams) were truly commited to funding this league. So it was more them deciding what markets to stay in rather than any city truly embracing a team. The FL attendance #'s weren't too far off from the rest of the league and were comparable to DAL & SJ. I just think you're overstating it a little. There aren't that many cities out there truly vying for clubs (in that they'll kick in any $$$). I think the major fault in FL was a lack of a willing owner. Only LA-Anschutz, DAL (or KC) - Hunt, and NE-Kraft had that at the time. I think the rest of the teams will be sold off when the right situation comes along (not sure about CLB).
Nothing personal but above where it says Welcome, *username*. You last visited: Yesterday at *time* Private Messages: 0 Unread if you click on private messages, you can go back and forth getting to know one another! (again, nothing personal - I just want the discussion to not get lost)
Okay. So maybe I was exaggerating a bit unknowingly. But isn't part of making a profit having a city that supports you? If Miami and Tampa had supported their clubs better, do you think their closings would still have been necessary? Or would it have taken a much greater response across the board? Did the MLS start too big or did the cities flat-out fail to support their teams well enough?
The primary reason that Miami and Tampa Bay were contracted is that league owned teams were standing in the way of new investment joining MLS. How many folks "kicked the tires" of the Burn, Mutiny, and Clash - but never bought in? A lot. Horowitz's problem wasn't so much the losses of the Miami Fusion FC franchise, but the additional amount of cash he was losing every year to cover his share of the losses of the Mutiny, Burn, and Earthquakes. When the league decided to cut two teams, Miami's days were pretty much up (read: Horowitz's bank account was nearly empty). The choice as to who would join them really came down to whether or not the Glazer family or George Steinbrenner would take over Tampa Bay. If that had happened then it's quite possible that Colorado or San Jose would've been the other contracted team. Hunt had agreed to assume the operating losses for the Burn until a buyer could be found. When a buyer for the Mutiny failed to materialize, Anschutz assumed the operating losses for the Earthquakes. What does this mean? It means that the teams didn't per se "fail" because of problems in the local markets. But that the failed because of problems in local ownership. Horowitz's pockets weren't deep enough to sustain the losses of both the Fusion FC and his share of league losses and the Mutiny were axed because there was no local ownership. San Jose's current mess is just the delayed mess they avoided back in January 2002. The rumors of KC moving to Rochester stem from the fact that Hunt never wanted three teams. To put it succinctly: Get and owner -> Get a team. All other discussion really doesn't factor into it until there are surplus of folks wanting to own MLS teams.
Tampa never had an investor (it was league owned). Miami's investor (Horowitz) wanted out. Dallas was the other team without an investor (SJ changed so often who knows) but Hunt lives there and the SSS (Frisco) plans had begun to develop. Tampa had no path to a SSS. SJ management had just been given to the NHL Sharks owners (SSVE? I believe ?date). MLS wanted to cut losses and get out of markets that weren't either huge (NY, LA, CHI) or had local investors/paths to SSS. I don't know how hard MLS tried to get a SSS in Tampa. They tried to sell to the NFL owner (Glazer) who now owns ~20% of Manchester United and is rumored to be considreing a takeover of ManU (though he'll deny it now). His sons and Steinbrenner's sons could have been ideal but they probably didn't like the single-entity structure and salary cap. So really, maybe Tampa shouldn't have been tried right now as a market to begin with since there never was an investor. Miami support was disappointing considering the large Hispanic populations but the stadium was well outside the city limits I believe. Check www.kenn.com for attendance #'s. I think Miami was building in it's last year due to success at winning. I think part of the cutting both FL teams was that if you're going to piss off 2 markets it's better to only piss off 1 state. About that time the Minnestota government was playing hardball with baseball about contraction. The state of Florida did nothing really when MLS decided to leave. In a summer league, it may be tough to draw fans with the weather here - baseball does poorly in both markets. An air-conditioned SSS would be ideal, but noone seems close to funding that. I think MLS will return to Florida (it will look like a triumph by the league erasing an old failure). It just might be quite a while. Soccer is a winter sport here in high school and faces strong competition from high school football but I think participation is decent and the area has decent soccer interest. I know Tampa is getting a sizable influx of Mexican immigrants though many of them are seasonal workers here (I believe) mostly in the late fall/winter. The migrant workers aren't well paid but would likely want to attend if MFL teams were playing here.
A lot has been said on this thread -- and others -- about this issue, so I'm just going to offer a couple of brief observations. 1) Cities with transient populations make it harder to establish the kind of pro sports loyalties that a 4th or 5th pro sport (like MLS) needs to survive. This also explains the demise of the Mutiny and Fusion. 2) While demographically, Atlanta has a lot going for it (4 million people, local soccer culture, lots of soccer-loving immigrants), it needs to show that there is acually a market for pro soccer. I work at UGA, and the Dawgs' roots go back a century. It is very difficult to emulate something equivalent for soccer without taking decades. 3) When the Silverbacks build their new stadium (btw, their new site has several practice fields which are now in use, but as of last week they had NOT broken ground on the stadium itself) they need to show that they can get a minimum of 5,000 fans a game, preferably closer to Rochester levels, which would take a further expansion of the new stadium. 4) Having visited the location, I'm doubtful that the site can be expanded to both include 20,000 people and their cars. It is greatly limited by interstates on two sides, and residential neighborhoods on the other two. There is a subway terminal about a mile an a half away, but between it and the stadium site is some of the most pedestrian-unfriendly landscape this side of Mars. 5) Until an owner is willing to plunk down the $10 million -- or whatever MLS wants for a new franchise -- it's not going to happen.
i really wish that a local investor would step up because i think that atlanta could support mls because accord to kenn.com the wusa atlanta beat had great attendence numbers and they were the womens team. atlanta 2001 2002 2003 total 6958 6784 11092 8325 http://www.kenn.com/soccer/wusa.html with the new silverbacks park underway i think that mls should wait and see how much attendence increases but according to thier website it will be able to be expanded for the future. also alot of people talk about how atlanta cant even support the teams we have. i hate this because u cant compare one sport to another because they have different demographics. i wish that someone would step up and invest in this city, mls needs a team to represent the southeast us. my family has the money to do it but what do we know about running a sports team all we know are gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and clothing stores like the rest of the pakistani population lol this was my second post so please dont flame me alot
i think that an arthur blank or ted turner-esque investor would be a godsend to mls. they would definately be the anti horowitz (the guy who failed with miami's mls franchise).
I love reading these Atlanta MLS threads. People just seem to hate, and I mean really hate, in a sporting sense, our fair capital. I don't get it. Whatever though. ATL will have a team eventually and then we'll find out who was right. By the way, to those of you in Athens: ISN'T IT GREAT LIVING IN THE CLASSIC CITY !!! (no where else I'd rather live) We all need to get together and take over a place and make it a soccer bar. My friend owns Transmetropolitan and he is a big fan.
sounds good to me im in atl but ill come up to athens to watch the game. hopefully when we get the new silverbacks stadium here they will show the games in their restaurant so we can all watch the games there. but until then anywhere is fine with me.
Wow, this may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. So, because the sports teams are bad here (something the fans themselves have no control over - the boycott of the Hawks has yet to produce results, BTW), Atlanta is a bad sports town. Congratulations on giving legitimacy to every other theory and explanation of Atlanta's "sports rep", because yours is easily the worst of them. Please, oh great wizard, fill me in on the long and distinguished pro sports history of Columbus, OH prior to 1996.
Atlanta should definately get a team. if not Atlanta than Charlotte but i would personally rather it go to Atlanta.
According to this article, Atlanta is already overextended and couldn't support another team from any league never mind the teams they already have!
but cleveland is far worse off and i think we all know that they came this close to getting an expansion team (rip wolstein). the formula remains... io + viable business plan (stadium, etc) = franchise. atlanta has neither. thats all that counts right now.