Partnering would be the best way to go. You'd be giving up all pretense that you're anything but a place for college kids to get more games in during the summer, but there's a place for that. I'm just not sure how many people want to go watch it happen. Well, about 450 a game, on average, as it turns out. But <100 in a lot of places.
Wes Brown @wesbadia Jan 31 If @OrlandoCitySC does move #USLPRO franchise to Louisville, what does that mean for #USLPDL's @ROVERSSOCCER? Can the area house 2 teams? River City Rovers@ROVERSSOCCER @wesbadia @ROVERSSOCCER fully supports USLPRO moving to Louisville! Good for the game, and good for the community. #synergy
you haven't been watching whats been going on in both OKC and Tulsa then. OKC's 4th tier team owns a pro expansion side in nasl and their supporters group and fans have been down right nasty to any fans or supporters of the usl pro energy fc especially here on bs. Tulsa'a 4th tier side resents that they weren't included in the discussions when the usl pro decided to expand there. Lets hope nothing like this happens in Louisville.
I have been, and I think it's all a bit childish. I get questioning incoming ownership, but to do so at the detriment of a club at a higher level with more $$ to support soccer in your city is beyond me. I haven't heard anything that doesn't strike me as "petty". I've heard things like the USL ownership doesn't have the soccer community in their best interest in mind and things like that ... but how? what have they done to make you say that? I don't know ... I haven't seen anything from the USL fan side slinging mud to the NPSL/NASL side, but have the other way around, but so far I've just seen petty things. Hope for their sake that if the NASL thing doesn't ever get off the ground (just rumors) and the USL provides a solid game to watch, they don't decide to not support it because of those same petty things.
I think it's the fact that both leagues rushed to have a team in OKC and both seem hell bent to beat the other. Pretty straight forward.
I read an interesting article about this move and how it's still not finalized. I'm looking for the article that I read, but can't seem to find it. I'll post it when I find it. But it seems like the big sticking point is working out a favorable deal to use the baseball stadium. It talked about how the current deal with the baseball team is very favorable to them. However, it seems like they were saying that a second tenant would not probably get a good share of parking and concessions. This is pretty much a common type contract that the primary tenant of most arenas / ball parks have. In some ways that's how they attract the primary tenant. The soccer group was working to try and get a better deal. Which makes sense. I can think of a couple teams that had really poor deals and this greatly effected their bottom line. Syracuse comes to mind first.
Questioning motives and having a healthy skepticism about some rather obvious conflicts of interest isn't "petty." It's essential. When your club's continued survival is at stake. Especially after your club drew over 3k fans per game in its first season at a 11k capacity stadium in which they are first tenant. http://www.tulsaathletics.com/
Bitching about the new group before they have even played a game because it potentially takes fans away from an AMATEUR team will never not be "petty". Judging a new team by the failures of small time ownership group in other sports because they weren't able to come to some kind of terms with the existing AMATEUR team will never not be "petty". Rallying people around staying AWAY from the new guys in town because they don't align with your current AMATEUR team is NOT good for soccer in your community ... it is petty. Be butt hurt at home, bitch to you spouce or best friend ... don't take it upon yourself to try to publicly bash some group that hasn't even signed a player yet because your team that draws 3k might get hurt by this. Not realizing that bringing in an ownership group with deeper pockets to play in a higher level league is good for the soccer community (at least until it's proven to NOT be good) is just jealousy.
Stating your OPINION as fact will never make it so. (see, I can use the CAPS LOCK, too). I've met with the owners of the Tulsa Athletics and know what their goals are supposed to be for their first 3-5 years (one goal of several is a professional level team)... and now, their hands have been forced. Now, you're the one who's being petty. This "AMATEUR team" has earned my respect and loyalty. I express skepticism about Tulsa USL Pro because the majority owners are from Walpole, NH with minority owners from Oklahoma City. This is going to be a "pro" soccer team that has no local ownership. Zero. Zip. Nada. And neither of the the current baseball team owners have ever, to my knowledge, shown any interest in soccer. And neither did their father back when he owned the baseball team. Zero. Zip. Nada. That is, until a very successful amateur squad in the NPSL set up shop at their old digs a few miles down the street. For Louisville fans, this would be the equivalent of the Indianapolis Indians engaging in a pissing contest with the new Indy Eleven NASL owners there by securing a USL Pro team and then saying that USL would be the best way to get a team in MLS for Indy... then subsequently propping up an effort for USL Pro in Louisville so they could "win one" for the USL. Add to that a hypothetical situation in which the River City Rovers do NOT approve of a USL Pro team in the neighborhood after just finishing a season in which they had higher per game attendance than eight of the thirteen teams in USL Pro... Thankfully for Louisville, the situation looks far more straight-forward there than it is here in Oklahoma.
"The league could expand by 2015 from between six to eight, or even more teams, which we look at as very positive" - Tim Holt - This line worries me a little, as oversaturation is never a good thing But back to the point of this thread: any updates on the progress for Louisville?
Yes, but they could add six to the fourteen they have now and still have fewer teams in D3 than in 2000 and there'd still be fewer combined D2/D3 teams than in 2002. I figure we are producing more professional-quality players now than in 2002.
I don't care if the messed up and didn't buy into MLS years ago. Why should I care? I don't pick my teams I root for base on the color of their jersey's either ... I'm rooting for them because it's good for developing soccer in this country. Rooting for their success much like all other USL Pro and NASL expansion teams to succeed because that helps develop a bigger and more complete pyramid. I guess I'm silly that way. I see the need for a successful D2 and D3 and even a D4. I don't care about ownership groups past failures as much as I do about rooting for their success moving forward because their success means success for the USSF pyramid. Call me crazy and tell me I'm an idiot for rooting for them ... oh well!
Hopefully we're better prepared to develop players, have a bigger fan base to help make this financially viable for D3 owners and like you said ... have more professional quality players to spend this money on developing. Also ... to expand by that many, they're going to have more players being paid by MLS playing in USL Pro. That number is going from 16 to 40+ based on affiliates ... and add in however many Galaxy II is going to add. That's a bit better of a business model than 2000/2002 as well, correct?
I'm not asking you to. There's a neglectful ownership pattern. What about the name? I think I would have had a hard time overcoming "Chicago Rhythm", YMMV. What if the jersey was Pepto Bismol Pink? It'd be hard to argue that one of the bigger things MLS had to overcome was the Nike Dreamlabs names & terrible branding of some of the initial teams. I wish that's why this was happening, but I don't think it is. Are you hoping for backdoor Pro/Rel? I don't know you well enough to call you that yet, but I reserve the right to in the future.
I may not be KY born but I am KY bred. Denver may be home now but I will always be a Kentuckian at heart. I am ecstatic Louisville will potentially secure a USL-Pro side and I will support their endeavors as best I can from afar. Bias I may be but Louisville (and KY as a whole) has the backbone (now) to support a professional team. The city and the region itself are booming. Louisville is continually in Money Magazine's top places to live. The city is a huge draw for young 20-somethings and well as young families. It's a hip city without being too trendy and there is always some event, some entertainment going on. It's much more international and metropolitan than people give it credit for. Between Southern Indiana - Louisville - Lexington there is a population of 1.5M -- more than enough to support a club. Two very good and national recognized youth programs, United 96 and Javanon, have produced good collegiate talent for years. I was once one of those . College soccer from Louisville to Kentucky to Northern KY to Lindsey Wilson has been a success. Soccer has gained traction and no doubt it's a sport that is no longer brushed aside in basketball-loving city and state. Youth and adult leagues are booming and it's not uncommon to hear soccer talk, see soccer jerseys, and catch a game or two at a local pub. Times have certainly changed. I'm 31 and it wasn't too long ago, when I was in HS, that I was an odd-ball of sorts because of my soccer obsession. It's not that people then hated the game or anything -- there was just little exposure. Look, I don't have facts, figures, and data to "justify" Louisville as a great candidate for the USL-Pro team. I don't need to. I grew up in the area, know the area like the back of my hand, and have seen the maturation of soccer over the years to firmly believe that USL-Pro can been a success.
I don't know where there is "over-saturation." There are 20ish teams in MLS, 13 in NASL, and 16 in USL Pro. So, we have around 40 teams for 313 million people in the United States -- not including Canada even though we have numerous teams there. Throw in Canada (34 million) and we are getting awful close to having 1 professional team for every 10 million people. That doesn't look like much of "over-saturation" to me.
Where did you find that beautiful graph? Really interesting to see that Division 1 is the only one with upward growth. You know, I hadn't really thought about overall population and oversaturation. It's a valid point, though my only worry is that unlike most of the world, our population centers are very stretched, due to our suburban sprawl. This would create lots of regional/metro area teams. Then again, a regional team, or in our case, metro area team, if done right, can be successful. At this point, while interest in soccer is high, my worry is that they will expand to any city who has someone with the money for a team. But the city you put it in is very important. Soccer fans, from experience as an SKC fan, not only care about the team and the sport, but about the city in general. And the environment for all this to work has to be right. That's why Indy is looking to be very successful, and it looks like Louisville could be as well, because the citizens who are potential fans really care about their city
Didn't find it. Made it. And Division I has been the division that's been fairly particular about who it lets buy in.
Could care less about pro/rel ... my statement about desire for a strong 2nd and 3rd division don't equate to pro/rel ... way to assume! I didn't say anything about the ownership groups desire to help grow soccer in this country ... they either will or they won't ... based on their financial success. Their motive is to have a team and possibly make some money ... ALL teams/organizations have this motive. No one sets out to lose money and never turn a profit ... and if they are, just donate the damn money to the USSF. I was simply saying I'm rooting for their success because successful (finacially) ownership groups at ALL levels only help develop soccer players and culture in this country. Grassroots efforts are great, but eventually they need to make money ... just like ownership groups with deeper pockets.