MLS Expansion Interest: Minneapolis

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by Goldenballs, Oct 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Goldenballs

    Goldenballs New Member

    Jul 17, 2007
    West Los Angeles
    Looks like Zygi Wilf is interested in a MLS expansion team. But, the latter half of the below story is really not all that exciting to read.

    No soccer in NFL stadiums!

    http://sports.yahoo.com/mls/news;_y...vrYF?slug=txmlsconfidential&prov=st&type=lgns


    "Minneapolis-St. Paul is ready to join the queue of cities seeking an MLS franchise after Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf expressed an interest in buying a franchise. Wilf, who is working frantically to secure a new stadium for his NFL team, is interested in the model of the New England Patriots, where Robert Kraft also owns the New England Revolution."
     
  2. Rise and Fire

    Rise and Fire New Member

    Apr 6, 2007
    Iowa City
    I'm not a fan of NFL stadiums for MLS teams. And you can't even consider the Metrodome. The Metrodome is probably the worst stadium in the history of American professional sports. I would personally seek out Don Garber myself if they put a team in the HHH Metrodome.
     
  3. flippin269

    flippin269 Member+

    Aug 3, 2003
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A similar article on the subject was mentioned before in another BS thread, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people agree that the deal would and should be thrown out as soon as the words "NFL stadium" and "interested in the model of the New England Patriots/Revolution" were mentioned.

    Toronto FC should be the model expansion plan; not New England. New stadium, catering to the soccer fans FIRST and other sports second, and selling out every game of the season with seats hard to come by. If Seattle/Qwest come in instead of Seattle/SSS, let that be the last time that ever happens to MLS.

    Now if Minnesota is willing to build a 20K+ SSS in or around Downtown Minneapolis, then they could be taken seriously. Until then, the rumor is a joke.
     
  4. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    I really think MLS's expansion motto should be if you build a soccer stadium, we will come. Otherwise don't bother us.
     
  5. flippin269

    flippin269 Member+

    Aug 3, 2003
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Rep Rep:)
     
  6. El Duderino

    El Duderino Member

    Nov 29, 2006
    This is probably the owner jockeying to get his football stadium built.

    Just a thought.
     
  7. voros

    voros Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Parts Unknown
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So Seattle can, but no one else is allowed?

    I mean that really is the 800 lb gorilla in the room with the Sounders. What exactly is Garber's argument going to be? The Seattle folks think it's all about picking on Seattle, but I could care less about Seattle having an MLS team. But this is the exact scenario that concerned me. If Seattle is in with an NFL stadium, where's MLS' footing when it comes to denying folks who show up without plans for an SSS?
     
  8. flippin269

    flippin269 Member+

    Aug 3, 2003
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's a great question, and I hope Garber addresses it. I'm guessing that because Seattle's NFL stadium was built to be able to cater to soccer, it would be considered to be an SSS, which would be a rule-bend. Plus the fact that Paul Allen were involved, plus because of that the rent would be free, it would be considered a no-lose situation. In actuality, MLS would lose a lot of credibility because of everything you said in the post, even though it's pretty much known that the SSS in MLS are much better facilities for soccer than the NFL and college football stadiums
     
  9. yellowbismark

    yellowbismark Member+

    Nov 7, 2000
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    Club Tijuana
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes. This is exactly what it is.
     
  10. maturin

    maturin Member

    Jun 8, 2004
    This is why Seattle in Qwest is such an awful idea. There will be plenty more NFL owners queuing up to put teams in their pointyball stadiums to pad the revenue now that the league is becoming profitable. This is why no exceptions can be made. No SSS has to mean MLS for you.
     
  11. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2006
    Here again is the stadium that the Vikings are looking at. It would be built in downtown where the Metrodome now is and be part of a nearly $1 billion mixed use development.

    [​IMG]


    I can't see how this facility would be unacceptable to MLS but Qwest would be. The Vikings might even paint out that big purple helmet on the 50 yard line for MLS games. ;)
     
  12. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    With whom?

    A few US soccer 'snobs' and a couple of wannabee investors?

    I'm sure Garber can't sleep nights.
     
  13. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    Everyone is TALKING about this. Well, when is someone going to DO something about it? :D

    Oh, that's right...
     
  14. metros11

    metros11 Member

    Sep 11, 1999
    Highlands of NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And this is precisely why personally I am against Seattle MLS at this time. It has nothing to do with the region, the fans, or the franchise. I welcome all of those, its the fact that the team has no interest in building a soccer specific stadium. It would set a precedent for future expansion, where NFL owners like Wilf will be able to have their teams play in huge cavernous stadiums. Now, Seattle MLS may work out at Qwest if the franchise is successful (DC United route), but not every team will be. And then you'll see other NYs, KCs and NEs.
     
  15. mbar

    mbar Member+

    Apr 30, 1999
    Los Angeles, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I didn't think it was possible to have more annoying fans then San Jose fans but I'm starting to feel that the Seattle fans here on Bigsoccer are going to win that competition by a land slide.
     
  16. SYoshonis

    SYoshonis Member+

    Jun 8, 2000
    Manistee, Michigan
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree. I'm sure Garber is smart enough to know that whatever "credibility" he loses is worth paying to have a team in such a viable market as Seattle. Simple-minded BS dweebs who draw imaginary lines in imaginary sand about "SSS or Nothing!!!!!" have the luxury of not having to actually run and expand a business.

    But, to get back to Minnesota, the real precedent being set in Seattle isn't more MLS teams in NFL stadiums, it's more NFL owners using Seattle as the template for getting their NFL stadium built.

    "See," they say, "Seattle built a football/soccer stadium, and that's what we want." What they will conveniently forget to mention, most likely, is that A) Qwest WAS actually built with special consideration for soccer and MLS, and not just with a wider field, and B) it took however-many years for MLS to actually move in there (assuming that it actually happens, which isn't even official yet).

    Remember, MLS (specifically, Doug Logan) was used to get the Seahawks a new stadium, and nothing more. If Paul Allen had wanted MLS at Qwest in the first place, they would have been there a long time before 2009, so this new interest really has nothing to do with the intentions expressed in order to get the original votes to build the thing. Allen coming in now really sounds like not much more than the situation of any other NFL owner who gets recruited by soccer zealots to help get an expansion team into his existing NFL stadium.

    MLS was a device that attempted to persuade the voters that their tax dollars weren't going to just the Seahawks and their billionaire owner, but would be a multi-sport, multi-team community investment (which, of course, was a lie). Don't think that Wilf and other NFL owners who want new stadiums didn't take note of that.
     
  17. MDSoccerDude

    MDSoccerDude Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    Owings Mills, MD
    The difference is that if Paul Allen is involved and there is no rent to use Qwest then the team can be profitable from day one. If a team has to pay crazy rent to use a stadium and only gets a small portion of parking and consessions then they won't be profitable. I believe MLS is trying to improve the product and to do that they need teams to be profitable so they can raise the salary cap.
     
  18. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Probably?
     
  19. Matrim55

    Matrim55 Member+

    Aug 14, 2000
    Berkeley
    Club:
    Connecticut
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The difference is this: MLS wanted/needed successful representation in the Pacific Northwest for the next television deal, so they were willing to sign off on playing in a less-than-ideal stadium. The league doesn't need any other market - Minnesota and even Philadelphia included - that badly.

    Qwest sucks and Seattle fans are delusional, but no more so than the BS geniuses who haven't yet figured out what's going on here. Zygi Wylf's football stadium is a non-story. Period.
     
  20. Soccer Doc

    Soccer Doc Member+

    Nov 30, 2001
    Keene, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is the reality in New England. The Krafts own the stadium as well as the Revs and likely either are close to breaking even or make a profit on the Revs.

    I agree that right now it doesn't make much sense to have a 60-75K stadium for the normal attendence at most MLS games but if the USA becomes in soccer what some of us feel it will become over the next generation, attendence will outgrow the current smaller SSS's and some of the larger stadia will fill for games.
     
  21. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I still don't understand the logic of people who are concerned Qwest destroys MLS' negotiating position. Why?

    So they let Seattle in and Minnesota or Phoenix says they want a MLS team for their NFL stadium. MLS says that's nice, but since we have many cities who are working on SSS (St. Louis, Philly, Vancouver, Cleveland, etc.) you can get behind them. Yes we let Seattle in, but I don't see a member of the top 20 richest people in the world in your bid so you don't get to jump the line. Next!

    Its not like MLS is hurting for expansion targets at this point. If this were 2000 and MLS were struggling just to keep the league at 12 teams I can understand the concern about Qwest's effect on the negotiating position, but now?
     
  22. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Please keep this kind of general expansion musing in the MLS: Expansion and Stadiums forum. Good convo there!
     

Share This Page