The comparison with Salt Lake may be particularly apt, given the significance of I-15 on the Wasatch Front and I-35 in the Hill Country, as well as where population growth is occurring in the two markets. (I'm unusually familiar with the two areas as I lived in Utah over a decade and have an ex from New Braunfels and a former colleague in San Antonio's city management.)
It's pretty impressive that Auistin was the No. 1 market in the US for I think it was Leicester's game the other day. One reason that I think San Antonio shouldn't get a team is pretty simple - they had their chance ten years ago and they didn't just say, no, they big-timed MLS. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and it would be a little disrespectful to places like Salt Lake and Toronto that did take the risk to go back there.
No, they didn't. You clearly have zero clue what went down. It was literally one man, not the city. Take your incorrect BS elsewhere.
Is it possible that name dropping Austin is just a tactic to get SA moving along? The size, and prevalence of the college program there seem to be big hinderances. Austin as an MLS market seems a little bit far fetched and kind of out of left field. In the past, Garber has name dropped cities with nothing emerging afterwards... Disclaimer: I'm not trying to offend anyone from Austin. It's just SA already is there with ownership, phase 1 of the stadium and a bigger market with a strong fan base.
Who's going to build further stages of that SA stadium? Have the Spurs committed to that or are they asking for money from the city? It does feel like Garber is downplaying San Antonio a bit too much, maybe trying to put some pressure on the city officials.
that's pretty much what it is, and even moreso I think San Antonio's ownership are aware their name-dropping is nothing more than a ruse to get them moving. Austin has been ice cold on the MLS news scene.
The closest Austin will get to an MLS team is if San Antonio gets one, and they put their USL team in Austin.
I'm not saying he was just making it up that there is discussions in Austin. Just perhaps that the discussions are not "as far a long yet" to use Garber-speak. El Paso is the most recent example that comes to memory, Las Vegas as well. Places where there might be interest and "discussions with Garber" get mentioned and nothing ever comes of it from time to time. I'm just speculating that the mention of Austin might be one of those as well, perhaps with a strategic intent.
I believe several members of the city council plus private investors were mentioned in articles before or near when Garber first mentioned the city of Austin. http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2014-03-28/all-aboard-the-soccer-train/ Don't remember El Paso being in the mix. Do you have a link?
Good find on Austin! Here: http://www.kvia.com/news/major-leag...long-for-the-next-round-of-expansion/30041554 Cleveland was also thrown around for a few years, albeit longer ago, and nothing really came of that.
The article is entitled " Major League Soccer commissioner says El Paso isn't 'as far along for the next round' of expansion". Doesn't sound like MLS was even bringing it up, just answering a question. As for Cleveland, that's because the investor (Bert Wolstein) in that story died before he wrote the $10 million check. And then his company lost a tax vote to get funds for the stadium. That's not MLS's fault.
Yes, that's the title of the article. I don't know that he was asked specifically about El Paso, it appears he just mentioned it in a question about where else the league was looking to expand. The direct quote: "We have also been in discussions with San Antonio, El Paso and St. Louis, they are just not as far along for the next round," Garber said during the roundtable... That sounds familiar to the recent quotes about discussions in certain markets. I was simply asking the question if it is possible for Austin just to be mentioned as something to apply pressure. I hadn't recalled or seen Austin being mentioned previously and it seemed to come out of nowhere. There's also this quote from Garber which pairs Austin and SA in the same breath as a notion of scarcity of spots: “There’s activity, a lot of public activity going on in San Antonio and Austin, so you can start seeing there are more markets than there are available slots and we’re very focused on stopping at 28 until we’ve kind of taken a big step back and think about how we manage expansion for the next 10-to-20 years after that.” <- This notion wasn't mentioned in relation to San Diego, Detroit, Minnesota or Sacramento. I was simply asking for input from forum posters on the possibility that it was part of a tactic, because I hadn't seen Austin mentioned seriously before.
I actually find that article subtly amusing: Before Fantasy Island becomes a reality, there remain several unresolved questions. The Lower Colorado River Authority is reportedly concerned about the potential effects of what will effectively be an eighth "Highland Lake Dam" in the middle of the Colorado River. "But we're certain all the bugs can be worked out or ignored in time for construction," said Perry appointee and board chair Timothy Timmerman. "If the governor's behind it, who are we to quibble?" The Save Our Springs Alliance issued a statement concerning the potential environmental threat to the Waller Creek spotted-back turtle – an endangered species with a range confined to one square meter of intermittent creek water – and indicated that SOS was prepared to file a lawsuit in federal court against the governor, the city, the county, the planning group, and all its members. Finally, when contacted for comment by the Chronicle, some of those named as directly involved said either that they had never heard of the project or suspected that the entire announcement was a hoax. TheChronicle News department is pursuing those allegations, and should anything turn up, we'll certainly be the first to report it.
San Antonio is not really a bigger market than Austin. Austin actually has a higher GDP, despite a slightly smaller population, so there is a lot more disposable income in Austin. Gerber has actually consistently name dropped Austin, and I think the reason is fairly obvious. Austin is growing extremely fast, has favorable demographics, and no professional sports franchises. That said, almost everything that has come out has been from the MLS side. I have heard very little about efforts from Austin politicians or business people trying to make this happen.
The only sports that are getting that extra disposable income wear Burt Orange and go by the name Tsip ...
It's not "hipsters". Its young people with high paying jobs and disposable income. That is a market that MLS likes, and Austin has to a much greater extent than San Antonio. The San Antonio population advantage is almost soley from more children per household.
I'm not sure what a Tsip is, but regarding burnt orange, I don't see how college football would be a major conflict with MLS. There are what, 3 or 4 home football games total that would occur during the MLS season? Who cares?
Well there is more than just football. There is also all of the other sports that Texas participates in like basketball, baseball, and soccer. Anyways, it isn't competition as much as politics. If the burnt orange don't want you there you most likely are not going to be there.
Not the people in Austin ... It's much more than just college football. TU is Austin, and that's it. The minor league sports play out of town, for a reason. IF any disposable income goes to sports, it's going to the Tsips (Longhorns). The University runs the place ... and everyone else has better shit to do (or believes they do).
You could say the same thing about Columbus. But, the Crew S.C. and Blue Jackets seem to be making viable progress going up against the football and basketball behemoth that is The Ohio State University.