Don't worry, you'll get used to it. There were actually people on here who thought MLS would stop at 18, because that would allow for a balanced schedule (as if that's the most important consideration!). And then there were people who thought MLS would stop at 20, because they see that as the ideal number likely based on their Premier League fandom. And then there were people who thought the "24 by 2020" statement was some sort of red line announcing a final stopping point instead of just a rough guide. Both numbers are now meaningless, MLS is going to 28, and it will reach 24 by 2018. And yet you'll now get people arguing that SURELY 28 is the absolute limit I mean how could it possibly go any higher?? Let's see what happens the minute they get to 28, and some billionaires want a team in some major city. And would MLS really stop expansion altogether without teams in markets like Detroit and Phoenix (both currently off the radar)? Hah, don't bet on it! Actually... they would say no to $100 million. That's the *current* expansion fee. It will continue to go up (as each fee is divided among a larger group of existing owners as compensation for their decreased ownership share). Hell Sacramento are in next and they will probably pay over $100 million... that's the very least they would have to pay. If MLS gets to 28 by expanding to cities like Sacramento, San Antonio, St Louis, and San Diego, which would mean Cincy is part of the "beyond 28" expansion, there's no question they would have to pay substantially more than that. My guess is $130-150m. Just look at the rise in MLS expansion fees over the last decade: 2005 RSL and Chivas: $7.5m 2007-8 TFC: $10m SJ: $11m 2009-10 Sea and Phi: $30m 2011 Port and Van: $35 2012 Montreal: $40 2015 OC: $70m 2015 NYC: $100m (second team in special market) 2017 Atl: $70m 2018 LAFC: $110 2017 Minnesota: ~$100m 2018 Miami: $25m (Beckham's contract)
If I'm Garber, I tell everyone at the 28th expansion team announcement that the league will max out at 32 teams, but MLS will wait for 8 years to allow the 28-team format to stabilize before expanding one last time. *That* will be the ultimate Carrot and Stick as the remaining cities that desire 'Major League' status will jockey for position over the next decade with the cream rising to the top. *Then* watch as the MLS commissioner announces an agreement that the top 4 USL Div 2 teams from each season will be rewarded with MLS spots 29-32 for the following season, returning to Div 2 at the end of that MLS season to allow another new group of teams to get a taste of the big leagues. Voila! Pseudo-pro/rel and a way to improve the quality of the Div 2 teams through experience in Div 1. Meanwhile, NASL will be doing their own thing and lobbing subpoenas at the USSF for not being allowed to play in the sandbox.
That's......actually the most reasonable MLS pro/rel scenario I've ever read on Big Soccer. Congrats.
That will never happen. It will be either all or nothing as far as pro/rel is concerned. I really don't see MLS allowing a minor league team into the league without paying a full expansion team fee. At the same time, I don't see MLS allowing a team and a city that paid full freight to be admitted into the major leagues to ever be demoted into the minor leagues. On the other hand, pro/rel might work between NASL and the ULS two divisions. There's just as not as money at stake in being promoted or relegated from those leagues. I think that the bottom line is that NASL teams just have to accept that their teams are minor league teams and will never be on the same level as MLS teams either in terms of financial income or quality of play.
Ugh why is it impossible to escape these idiotic pro/rel discussions... pro/rel will never happen with MLS. It could maybe happen at lower levels of the pyramid (still very unlikely), or if MLS collapses and is replaced by some other league (almost zero chance in our lifetimes), but otherwise it's pointless to discuss.
I don't really believe in pro/rel either at least for North America. I'll believe it when I see it. Still I'd like to see the regular season count for more where a higher placed team gets some type of reward bonus money or something like that. As it is, the lower placed teams are rewarded for losing with draft picks , allocations and whatever . Other that placing in the Concacaf CL , which still isn't anything close to being all that viable or rewarding, a team like San Jose in 2012 wining the Supporters Shield and getting knocked out in the first round literally imploded the team a year or two later. Back to the subject, does Cincinatti have plans of going to MLS? I know Sacramento always talked about it even before they started playing in the USL but I haven't read anything out of Cincy as of yet.
Yes, yes. I more or less see this happening. Maybe not quite the exact same way, but generally speaking something along these lines. Damn it. You had me until this point. Why oh why did you have to go there? That assumes that the NASL will still exist. As a soccer fan, I hope they do, but many of their actions do little to inspire confidence.
This article from the Telegraph includes significant conversations with the GM and puts forth MLS as the goal for the team. Being somewhat unfamiliar with Nippert Stadium, I don't know how physically suitable it is. Perhaps it's fine, perhaps it's incompatible, and perhaps it needs resurfacing and/or alterations to some sections of stands. Additionally, given that control of facilities is crucial to profitability, the biggest concerns with Nippert may not relate to its surface or sightlines.
Did it say anything about what happens if they don't make it to MLS? To me that is the biggest concerns with all these new teams with the stated goal of MLS. Are they setup to survive not making it to MLS? I fear that once MLS stops expanding you are going to have a lot of teams close their doors in the USL.
Without looking through Cincinnati Enquirer archives for confirmation, my recollection was that joining MLS was the stated goal when the club was announced. I had a chance to talk with Berding and Harkes at a local brewery not long after the announcement and they said they expected to be in the round after MLS gets to 28, in 8 to 10 years. So, if I were to pull out a crystal ball, my guesses are: the locations of teams 25 to 28 are pretty much decided on by the league and the league will expand beyond 28. Edit... On second thought, Maybe I was wrong, and they planned to be part of the 28. Its been a while.
I think it really all depends on if some of the other cities can actually get an ownership group together. How many times has Detroit come up and nothing has materialized. As for Nippert: They resurfaced the field prior to this season and next year, they'll be taking out the first few rows of seats in order to get the field up to 75 yd width. I have my own reservations about Nippert, but MLS doesn't require a SSS, they require that the teams control revenue when occupying a stadium. I could see FCC working out a deal with UC or the Bengals (if that's an option).
I think that it's really early in the game for FC Cincinnati and we're talking at least a few years before teams 27 & 28 are decided. My guess is that, if he wants to, Cincy's billionaire owner could finance most of the cost of a soccer specific stadium as long as the county government pays for infrastructure. Perhaps, he is already in early discussions with Hamilton County or the City of Cincinnati.
The Lindners own the big tennis center in Warren County (about 30 min from downtown) IIRC. There's plenty of room there if you absolutely had to build a SSS outside of the city limits. In Hamilton county, it might be a little more difficult. Downtown Cincinnati is pretty built out but you might be able to fit an Avaya-sized stadium in the surface lot just north of the casino. There's also some room in the Queensgate area near the museum center.
I wonder if things like this would enter into MLS's consideration of Nippert for FC Cinci... http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinna...12/23/carl-h-lindner-iii-and-wife-donate.html Gosh, I hope not. UC is a great location.
23k last night for FCC vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds. Incredible numbers there in the Queen City. As I think most here know, MLS wants control of revenues, hence the SSS/control over stadium operations mandate. Unless FCC can negotiate that kind of situation at Nippert, it is almost a certainty that MLS would require stadium plans for expansion. The real sticking point is politics. Cincinnati, as a town, like much of Ohio, is conservative (read up on the Cincy Streetcar project in Over-the-Rhine if you're in the mood for some serious pooh-flinging). Getting a $100m soccer stadium built would not be easy to accomplish via public funding, and if it were done, it would likely not be in a central location, like Downtown or UC.
well with the numbers being put in the stands i hope they can work something out. It really is Sacramento East what is happening there early on
Pretty awesome numbers for a 3rd division expansion club! Record Crowd of 23,375 Sees Cincinnati Edge Riverhounds
I hope someone disabuses MLS about an SSS being better than Nippert. You look at the Bailey, and see a sign proclaiming the business school (just outside the stadium) named after the owner's father being proclaimed either 30th, 15th, or top 20 in various ratings. The family name is all over campus for various philanthropic endeavors. I find it hard to believe that an agreement acceptable to MLS couldn't be fashioned for long term use of Nippert. I doubt you could get a better area around the stadium in the region. That said, another option could be Summit Park in Blue Ash. Former airport, convenient location. The City redeveloped it as a park/bandshell and seem to still be trying to figure out what to do with the other half the site. Blue Ash always seems to be looking for something to draw attention to themselves, like the little Crosley Field off Grooms. Knowing Blue Ash, all the Lindner's would need to do is ask and they'll be falling over themselves making it happen.
What is the main problem with Nippert Stadium and why couldn't it be used for long term use in MLS? Would it be because MLS wants their owners to either eventually own or control their own stadiums?
I think it would be a great place - walking distance to Short Vine and Calhoun Street, even the gaslight district. Plenty of parking. Long standing relationship between the ownership and the University. Indeed, the ownership indicated that they plan to play there unless MLS objects. I think I linked an article above that hints at MLS objections, which the ownership believe can be overcome. However, some here seem to think MLS have criteria that Nippert doesn't meet. Hopefully one of those will fill us in. Maybe it was control of revenue. If that fails, I think Summit Park would be a better choice than the Western and Southern tennis complex site.
Couldn't the potential current or eventual MLS owners plan on building a stadium down the line? I mean does it have to really have to be build your own SSS or no dice? Seattle doesn't have one and neither does DC and it took San Jose 7 years to build theirs so I don't see why Cincinnati needs one in place off the bat.
There's room in Queensgate and West End for a stadium. At least, I think there is. You'd think with the boom in OTR, a stadium just west of there with some new condos next to it might take off. I also think PBS would be an option if Nippert doesn't work out. MLS want teams to control revenue, not necessarily have a SSS. That's how Seattle and Atlanta get to play in NFL stadiums Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure where. If they ever get around to replacing the Brent Spence, maybe some of that land could become available. That might be 10 years away, though.
It's not so much about having a SSS as it is about having control of revenue. Seattle's ownership controls the operations at CenturyLink Field. DC United is more or less grandfathered. RFK is terrible, but they've been trying for years to get a new stadium built. Politics have really been a nuisance to their efforts. I don't know how familiar you are with the situation of San Jose Earthquakes, but calling them an expansion team is kind of like calling the Cleveland Browns an expansion team; technically it may be true, but it were a Facebook status it would have read "it's complicated". The franchise was originally moved to Houston because the ownership at that time was not able to reach the stadium deal they wanted. Almost immediately after the franchise moved, new would-be ownership jumped into the game with with promises of a new stadium. While it is true that it took a few years for various deals to be finalized (and renegotiated) and for construction to begin (as well as 2.5 years for construction to be completed), the new ownership had been working on getting the stadium done since the beginning. If you want to cite San Jose as an example of MLS allowing an extended timetable for a SSS, you can absolutely argue that point. The issue you would really have is other cities being willing and able to get it done sooner. You'd have to argue successfully that Cincinnati is worth the wait, compared to St. Louis, Sacramento, San Antonio, Detroit, etc.