That's a fair point, but I don't see that as a show stopper for this round. The juvenile detention center can be housed temporarily at another site, namely the Mound Road correctional facility in Detroit. The deal with Wayne County will likely be finalized by mid-September. If they break ground on the stadium by March 2018, they could potentially play in 2019 if Detroit is awarded a franchise this December. Worst case, they could play at Comerica Park for a few months while the stadium is finished.
I don't think Detroit needs to have the stadium ready to go by the opening day. They can have temporary venue as long as the construction deal is done and ready to go, or under construction preferably.
some pretty good news in local soccer circles... http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/...lege-soccer-tournament-coming-to-11740340.php International college soccer tournament coming to S.A. for next five years Tuesday, August 8, 2017
It's a mystery to me on why San Antonio hasn't been more aggressive.....I'm not sure sitting back is the best strategy...I've long thought San Antonio is a good MLS market I also think the NASL should look into a market like El Paso...
Which is when several other bids will likely have their stuff together (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, etc.) So, yeah. My gut tells me it's either really bad strategy or cold feet on the part of someone.
precisely, San Diego probably blankets one spot if they unscrew themselves next round. San Antonio probably has tough competition between Nashville and Raleigh for that other
I thought Phoenix had their act together. Privately funds available for the expansion of their existing stadium between two freeways, with public transit available from Phoenix and a college stadium nearby to play matches while the stadium expansion is completed.
The stadium i believe is real close, but I get the sense they can't go forward without richer investors. But the point still stands: why limit yourself to only the second round where there will be more competition?
I think the Columbus Crew's relocation to Austin could be bad for San Antonio. I'm rooting for you guys in S.A. but if the rumors are 100% true and this move happens in a few years then the Spurs oraganization needs to wake up and have urgency or else it will be too late.
Austin has been hurting San Antonio all through this process. It has been fairly clear that Garber & the BOG have found Austin to be a sexier market, but they could never get the locals (business community, political leaders) very interested (in soccer or any other pro sport). Austin getting a team would be a blow, no doubt. But there could be a silver lining in that at least an expansion slot won't be gone. It is not impossible that San Antonio could argue its case on being a natural rival for Austin. The again, if that's your tactic, you want to get in on the discussions now, because once Precourt is established in Austin, he may try to argue San Antonio is his territory (which on the ground would be pretty ridiculous, but on paper it might look like it stands up).
I suspect that the Crew moving to Austin kills the San Antonio bid.. "Someone in the know" told one of the soccer journalists that San Antonio's proximity to Austin featured prominently in San Antonio's expansion bid saying that San Antonio would be able to draw from Austin.
They found Austin to be a sexier market, because...well....it is a sexier market. It's the 27th largest market in the country (San Antonio is 35th) and it's growing faster than any other. Within 10 years it will move up to roughly 16th. I get that there's a resistance to support pro sports there due to UT and the cultural quirks, but the city is growing so much that it's losing its quirks. To small for baseball's schedule. No way the Cowboys let an NFL team move in. So it's either basketball (can't see it) or soccer. MLS IMO is gearing itself up for 150 million + revenue clubs in another 10-20 years, and in the long term, it would appear that Austin is a stronger bet for that than San Antonio. Which is different than saying that I think supporters in Austin deserve it more than San Antonio (because they don't). The interesting question to me for this round (and future rounds) of expansion: Midwest city that fills out the geographic footprint better or San Antonio, which could probably draw more support in a bigger market than a metro like Cincinnati/Indianapolis/Cleveland in the long term.
I don't know where you are getting your numbers. By metropolitan statistical area 2016 estimates, San Antonio is 24th (2,429,609) and Austin is 31st (2,056,405). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas By 2016-2017 Nielsen TV market rankings, San Antonio is 31st, and Austin is 39th. https://www.lyonspr.com/latest-nielsen-dma-rankings/ Now, yes, Austin is growing faster than San Antonio. But San Antonio is also growing fast. (19.82% vs 13.4% growth since 2010, both in the top 5 of growth of top 50 cities). Also I have no idea where you came up with the idea that Austin will be 16th in 10 years. Minneapolis is currently the 16th MSA with over 3.5 million people. Even continuing its torrid growth pace, Austin is at least 20-30 years from that number (and in 20-30 years that number wouldn't likely be good enough for 16th as it's not likely every other city is going to just stagnate where they are). So if you have other metrics, please share them. MSA and DMA rankings certainly aren't flawless. But I don't know of metrics that have Austin that high or rising that high.
Not sure what his numbers are referring to. That said, while smaller in terms of population, Austin already has a fairly significant lead on San Antonio in terms of economic output, and also has more households. San Antonio's "larger size" essentially comes down to having more children per family. The gap is also growing as Austin keeps reeling in tech workers. I think the advantage San Antonio has is that it is less transient than Austin. Lots of locals rooting for the Spurs and wanting MLS out of civic pride, whereas a lot of Austinites may live somewhere else in five years. But Austin is very clearly the sexier market demographically. It is not close.
Yeah, I don't dispute that Austin has preferable demographics. I just don't know any metric that says Austin currently has more people.
I agree, Austin most definitely does not have more people, and will not anytime soon. What it does have is a lot more twenty and thirty-something with disposable income. Three people in that group is more valuable to MLS than a cash-strapped family of four.
BEA Metro GDP has them at 27th as of the latest available (2016), just a touch behind Indianapolis, who they've since passed. Metro GDP or Personal Income trumps population in terms of drawing $$$ all else equal as it correlates better to franchise revenue. I thought it was 16th, hence the roughly. I can't give out some of the forecast info I have (heavy fee subscriber based economic stuff used for things like muni bond risk assessment and site selection). What I can say is this: If you took the intermediate term growth forecast for all of the metros, recognizing that going out 10 years is going to introduce a lot of error, Austin falls somewhere between 19-23. There's a fair bit of room between places like STL pretty close to where they currently are and the next tier up (Minny, Detroit, Denver), but within ten years, they're going to be much close to that next group than they would the metros they're expected to pass. The 19-23 also assumes that Riverside will remain separate from LA and SJ/SF aren't combined. If this happens, or if you consider them to be the same market already, then they'll be 17-21. I'll flight them below in groups of 8, being a bit more conservative for Austin and more aggressive for the other fast risers. Group 1: NY, LA, Bay Area, Chicago, Dallas, DC, Houston, Philly Group 2: Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minny, Detroit, San Diego Group 3: Denver, Baltimore, Charlotte, Portland, Austin, Tampa, St. Louis, Orlando Group 4: Indy, Columbus, Sacramento, Nashville, KC, Cincy, Pittsburgh, San Antonio Group 5: Vegas, Cleveland, Bridgeport, Milwaukee, Salt Lake, Raleigh (if no combo with Durham) Note the wealth impact pushing some lower pop/higher income areas up vs. higher pop/lower income areas. Boston up, Minny over Detroit, Phoenix lagging, Vegas+Orlando much lower than their pop figures alone would suggest. I don't have a dog in the fight, but FWIW, if MLS' ambition is to progress marginally from where it is from a status standpoint San Antonio is probably every bit as good (or better) than Austin. If their ambition is to grow the league to turn it into more of a premium event with more commercial $$$ flowing in, trying to climb the global status table vs places like Netherlands, Mexico, Belgium, Turkey, etc...then Austin is more likely to deliver (long term) on that ambition than San Antonio. And I think it's pretty clear that's what they're trying to do.
I definitely think that Austin and San Antonio are two entirely different strategies. IMO San Antonio is more of a sure thing to put butts in seats. They pro sports tradition with the Spurs, the city is more family oriented, and there are far less entertainment options to compete with. On the other hand, Austin is the higher upside play. You get to be the big dog in town from a sports standpoint, you get an audience with more disposable income, you can charge higher prices, sell more beer, and get more corporate sponsorship. You can probably also do a better job attracting international players. In exchange for that it is going to cost quite a bit more to get the team going and you are going to have to fight harder to build the fan base.
I think 4 teams in Texas will be great for MLS, in a market with almost 30 millions inhabitants in 2020. Rivalries between Dallas-Houston Austin-San Antonio And between all 4 cities will be awsome. FC Dallas and Houston Dynamo underperfomance at the gates comes from some lack of soccer projection, with this 4 soccer franchises in Texas, this could level up the game in the state among pro sports. Soccer can't think like Football and Baseball they need much more teams in US and closer to build a large fan base. They need proximity close to home policies to have more market share.
I don't know if I can see MLS going larger than the typical 30-32 teams. Some markets that make sense will get left out, just as they do in other big American sports. But I think the idea that Austin "blocks" San Antonio (or vice-versa) is nonsense. That's like saying Harrison, NJ blocks Philadelphia. Texas is a geographically large place with four completely unique large cities (and people in Fort Worth might say five).
http://www.expressnews.com/news/loc...m_source=CMS Sharing Button&utm_medium=social Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff has asked Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood to investigate whether Major League Soccer officials violated any criminal or civil laws when they encouraged the county in 2015 to purchase Toyota Field and submit a bid for an expansion franchise in San Antonio — two years after Anthony Precourt, chairman of the Columbus Crew, had obtained a legal right in 2013 to relocate the Crew to Austin.
Here's a bizarre but not impossible scenario: San Antonio expansion anyway, despite Precourt's stated plans. MLS HQ had been talking about both markets before, and now we know it was in part because Precourt wanted to prime the market and get everyone else thinking relocating an existing team there could make sense. But this probably meant they had to tell San Antonio that one doesn't rule out the other, because they knew what was happening behind the scenes, or they'd face complications. Precourt needed to stay quiet until after the expansion decision was made if he didn't want San Antonio in. He needed the SA bid outside the top four in a way that looked at least plausible to outsiders, (which is easier to do from a seat on the expansion committee) then he could "decide" central Texas looked good when "reviewing his options" for the team following the expansion announcement. Instead, the city has a potential lawsuit with pretty solid ground under it. And even if they lose, stuff gets made public that Precourt and MLS want to keep private. So either Precourt and MLS have to pay off San Antonio and SS&E as quietly as possible, or award a team. A settlement is more likely, but I could see some of the other owners being annoyed with how he handled this, giving San Antonio the thumbs up and telling Precourt, "sure, now go to Austin if you really want to." (Wealth-ese for "GFY.") Now that would be hilarious.