NASL Bay Area

Discussion in 'NASL Expansion' started by Earthquake FC, Aug 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rowdy Joe

    Rowdy Joe Member

    Jan 7, 2016
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Oh, my bad thought you were
    Actually it was two WHL clubs to leave for the NHL, the Vancouver Canucks and the San Francisco Seals
     
  2. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Three former AAFC teams joined the NFL and one of the three is not the same Colts team we know today.

    The AAFC in 1949 consisted of Cleveland, San Francisco, an amalgam of Brooklyn and New York, Buffalo, Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore.

    Cleveland, San Francisco and Baltimore joined the NFL in 1950. Baltimore went belly-up, got sold back to the league, and was replaced by the erstwhile Dallas Texans franchise (which has its own convoluted lineage) in 1953. The other clubs folded.

    Four of the seven extant ABA teams at the end of the 1975-76 season joined the NBA: Indiana, New York, San Antonio and Denver. Kentucky took a buyout to go away and its owner ended up taking that $3M and buying the Buffalo Braves (now the LA Clippers via San Diego). Virginia folded right after the season and missed its chance to be a part of any deal. And the owners of the Spirits of St. Louis got the best deal in sports history.

    If the general point of all this is to set precedent for an MLS/NASL merger, we've been over the reasons why the other mergers happened, and those conditions do not currently exist. That said, if the NASL continues to make positive moves and create and nurture strong clubs and get exposure, at least they can get closer to that goal. MLS still has a 15-year head start and has spent (and still has) billions of dollars invested in the league and its infrastructure. The NASL is still many, many years, many, many stadiums and many, many stars away from even being able to bring the things to the table the AAFC, ABA, AFL and WHA did or to exert the external pressures those leagues did on the established circuits.
     
  3. Rowdy Joe

    Rowdy Joe Member

    Jan 7, 2016
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
     
  4. Rowdy Joe

    Rowdy Joe Member

    Jan 7, 2016
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    no Actually I don't think their is gonna be a merger of any kind any time in the near future, was having a debate over rival sports league in north America were failure or not, I wouldn't want a nasl-mls merger, the"soccer pyramid" here in the US needs different levels and leagues, competition is always a good thing
     
    kenntomasch repped this.
  5. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, rival leagues have had varying degrees of "success," depending on how you define that.

    Remember, the most successful one ever is still in existence: the American League. The rivalry really doesn't exist anymore thanks to standardization and interleague play and time and the "Major League Baseball" umbrella, but the AL came into being to challenge the longstanding NL. (The Federal League was the most successful rival baseball league, lasting two seasons.)

    In gridiron football, the (third) AFL was obviously the most successful, bringing pressure to bear that forced a merger after a war that was hurting both sides. (Professional football was under-serving the market and you could still afford to bid up the price of players - to a point - thanks to ABC and later NBC TV money.) The AAFC was shorter-lived and did force a smaller merger, so it was likely the second-most-successful rival football league. The WFL sank in a morass of bad debt (all the various other leagues back in the primordial soup days were ramshackle in an era where the NFL wasn't much better, but still better). The USFL was fun and changed the game a bit (and had a lot of very, very good players when you could, again, afford to outbid the NFL for them prior to the economics of the game changing quite radically in the early 1990s). But it was only quasi-successful. (It has, unfortunately, led to this belief that there's this huge untapped market for spring football, which is not actually true.) All the other recent gridiron leagues have been alternative, not competitor, leagues. Even the Arena league doesn't compete with the NFL. Anyone who says they're going to compete head-to-head with the NFL (and just about no one says that anymore, I don't think) is an idiot. Guys with that much money usually just buy an NFL franchise because it's a safer bet.

    The NBA itself only goes back 70 years. The ABA was a circus, but an important one that did have quite the impact on the game at the time and continues to to this day. No one has mounted a serious attempt to rival the NBA since. Right after the ABA-NBA merger, pro basketball probably wasn't seen as worthwhile to get into (before Bird, Magic and Jordan). Now it would be too expensive, too.

    The WHA had an impact on the game and fought a war that led to a somewhat successful, ABA-like conclusion. But there hasn't been any type of viable competitor since. (The proposed WHA2 many years ago was a pipe dream that never had a chance.) Again, finances being what they are, it's hard to go after one of the big four.

    History shows us that to really be a viable competitor, you have to bring something to the table (in terms of markets or players or fan bases) that the established league wants/needs, you have to be able to exert financial (and competitive) pressure, and you have to be patient and able to withstand years of losses and instability. I don't think the NASL is there yet. If MLS wants an NASL market, they'll just take it and if you don't like it, their club will put your club out of business anyway. Very few NASL players would be ones MLS would have to have under any circumstances and there's no huge, viable fan base in any of their cities yet.

    The NASL's newly announced TV deals are really great for them. But CBS Sports Network, beIN Sport, ESPN3 and One World are not remotely equivalent to ESPN, FS1 (and sometimes actual Fox) and Univision. We don't know the terms of those deals, either, but they're not likely to be lucrative enough for the NASL to start poaching MLS players, as all the other viable competitor leagues have done as part of their strategy.

    The NASL will need successful clubs, good stadiums that are largely filled, very rich people, TV revenue, players worth paying to see, and time. The last one is the only one they can't really control but it's the only one that's going to happen, regardless.
     
  6. falvo

    falvo Member+

    Mar 27, 2005
    San Jose & Florence
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
  7. SixKick

    SixKick Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 13, 2000
    Club:
    Club América
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
  8. C-Rob

    C-Rob Member

    May 31, 2000
  9. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Their odd marketing campaign continues. I wish them luck.
     
    Zamphyr and bobby_guzman repped this.
  10. augiechen7

    augiechen7 Member

    Aug 5, 2014
    San Francisco/Washington, D.C.
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hey guys! Sort of off topic but, as a casual SJ Earthquakes fan from the East Bay would it be appropriate to support an SF NASL club? Obviously I can do whatever I want but I just want to hear some opinions. Cheers lads
     
    bobby_guzman and FootySkeptic repped this.
  11. falvo

    falvo Member+

    Mar 27, 2005
    San Jose & Florence
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    Unlike the Lazio -Roma derby, I doubt you will get mugged if you go to a game!:)
     
    augiechen7 repped this.
  12. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes you have my permission. Anyone else? ;)
     
  13. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Depends. By SF NASL club are you referring to the Deltas? Because right now I think you'd have to be on crack to support these knuckleheads.
     
  14. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    I vote against it.

    Because I can.
     
  15. oneeyedfool

    oneeyedfool Member+

    Nov 17, 2012
    Club:
    New York Cosmos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why is that? Many of the questions people have been asking on here have been answered. They have well financed owners, a place to play in San Francisco and a plan to build the club for the long term. Brian Andres Helmick is a nice guy who has been very open and thoughtful in his communications with the public about the team:

    http://midfieldpress.com/2016/04/01/sf-deltas-look-to-change-pro-soccer-history-in-san-francisco/

    I don't see how he is a knucklehead or how you can root against him trying to accomplish bringing soccer to SF without being a really bitter pessimist who refuses to adjust his opinion in the face of new information.
     
    The One X repped this.
  16. The One X

    The One X Member+

    Sep 9, 2014
    Indiana
    Club:
    Indy Eleven
    I vote yes. Support both teams.
     
  17. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    You talking about me? :mad: :ROFLMAO:

    Actually, I feel a smidgen better about these guys since they did that Midfield Press interview you noted.

    One of the main reasons all us locals and natives thought this thing was beyond crazy was because of the downtown stadium business. That made the whole thing seem totally detached from all reality. But it seems that was another NASL bid entirely. These guys are looking to make a home in Kezar for the foreseeable future, which makes this feel a bit more level-headed. Even their long term, totally back-burner stadium thinking seems on point:
    If there's a chance for a new (smaller) stadium, that's maybe how it happens. Maybe. But the real issue isn't a future new stadium. It's the fact that they say they're cool being at Kezar.

    That said, at some points in that interview I just shook my bitterly pessimistic head and winced. Especially question 4 where they go through the 6 reasons other teams failed and why the situation is maybe different today. Seems to me there's a lot of wishful thinking in there.
     
  18. Burr

    Burr Member+

    Boca Juniors
    Argentina
    Jul 8, 2014
    Tampa, FL
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's different leagues so I think it's totally kosher.
     
    The One X repped this.
  19. thesockerguy

    thesockerguy Guest

    He seems like a nice guy but from my perspective, it seems like his team is catering to the hipster transplant community instead of overall San Francisco. I'm not against him, hell I put in my ST deposit last week but I am feeling uneasy regarding the way he is conducting business. IMO, this team doesn't signify San Francisco but the tech douches that move in.
     
    athletics68 repped this.
  20. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    I tend to agree. In that way it's a reflection of its local owners.

    And I prefer the phrase tech trash. :whistling:
     
  21. augiechen7

    augiechen7 Member

    Aug 5, 2014
    San Francisco/Washington, D.C.
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    lol and I'm neither a tech douche or living in San Francisco
     
  22. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    Then maybe the Deltas aren't the team for you! ;)

    Perhaps you should consider SRFC instead! :D
     
    athletics68 and augiechen7 repped this.
  23. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    FootySkeptic repped this.

Share This Page