NASL, convince me

Discussion in 'NASL' started by Arsenalfc1983, Oct 25, 2010.

  1. Arsenalfc1983

    Arsenalfc1983 New Member

    Jul 28, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I apologize if this is in the wrong thread.

    As someone who doesn't really understand all that's going on in USSF D2 lately, I decided to try to figure out everything that's going on.

    I'm a fan of Rochester Rhinos, who announced their self-demotion to D3 USL Pro, I was pretty bummed about it. But looking at the long term future of the NASL I was questioning how successful it will be.

    I'm not trying to offend anyone, or cause any arguments but I am curious as to what people think.

    This is how I see it.

    Montreal - Gone in 2012
    AC St. Louis - Money Issues??
    Carolina
    CP Baltimore - Money Issues - 1075 avg attendance
    FC Edmonton - Unkown, very small stadium
    Miami - 1254 avg attendance
    Minnesota - Money problems - 1375 avg attendance
    PR Islanders
    FC Tampa Bay

    Am I missing anyone?

    I want a solid, stable D2 so I'm hoping some people can tell me what I'm missing and get my hopes up again.
     
  2. jcm28

    jcm28 Member

    Apr 12, 2009
    Puerto Rico
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Puerto Rico
    Well, the NASL is actually run by the owners of the clubs and not by some pig that stays with all the money. If there are any problems, all the teams will resolve them together even though the teams look shaky right now.
     
  3. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    We have absolutely no idea who that Mister Pig might be (lol)
     
  4. Danilo-11

    Danilo-11 Member

    Dec 20, 2006
    Houston, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    Venezuela
    Didn't know that... I like it.
     
  5. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    A nationwide D2 in 2 big countries like USA and Canada together does not seem like a good idea to me
     
  6. houndguy

    houndguy New Member

    Sep 5, 2001
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Well in the past the pig was pretty known, from what I understand the new USL will be more team run and team centric.

    I don't personally believe there will be a Div 2 next year, and that US soccer has a deep enough fan base yet to support such a concept. Unless MLS and the USSF finally accepts Pro/Reg and lets be honest, that is not going to happen in our lifetime.

    I think we're going to see a lot of new teams in the USL - Pro league, and a lot of them will fold next year. If they manage to play the whole year.

    I seriously think were going to see the USL and NASL reform into one league, the USL needs the "solid" NASL teams like Tampa, PR and Miami. The two current teams in PR now, Orlando and with the addition of these there teams you have a nice little southern division.

    The north already has 7 well established teams, and one or two more additions. Now you just need to concentrate on the west. Where travel costs and other issues will be foremost on the team owners minds.
     
  7. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    +1, a D3 with a northern, southern and western division seems like a good idea
     
  8. eclipse02

    eclipse02 Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    Burn in hell Phil Rawlins.
     
  9. WhiteStar Warriors

    Mar 25, 2007
    St.Pete/Krakow
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  10. BILLSAJA

    BILLSAJA New Member

    May 17, 2010
    Club:
    Sheffield Wednesday FC
    Yeah, all that profit that all these lower league teams make going to one person..............oh that's right, the "pig that stays with all the money" is a total fallacy created by a bunch of guys (NASL ownership) who sulked because they couldn't have things their own way. There is no money, that was just simply a case of Miami trying to take over the league as they had been trying to for years, Cooper's bruised ego and a bunch of teams who went along with the illusion that was NASL for one season.

    Now that's done, and despite the massive divisions and issues it caused, we are going to be left with the embarrassment of having no second division as such in this country.

    Phil Rawlings can "burn in hell" all that poster likes but given the NASL model has failed, he was left with the prospect of a D3 team geographically isolated, playing in a small market in a HS stadium with no beer rights and the likelihood of another 6-7 figure loss making season. Instead he chose to move to a year-round facility where he can host major friendlies, share the financial burden, cut travel costs (flying out of Orlando vs Austin) and have control over the second and third biggest income stream for D2/3 clubs - concessions and corporate sponsorships.

    Someone needs to convince me (and countless other soccer fans) where the meat is with NASL.

    Who is the $20mm man in Tampa, St. Louis, Puerto Rico, Minnesota?

    Who is going to prop up the finances in Carolina (owners looking to draw back/divest a la Austin) and in Baltimore?

    Once Montreal leaves, where are the fans? Do any NASL teams other than Montreal draw over 4k?

    Who is the Commish? Not Cooper I'd hazard. The kid from Tampa? The Miami crowd?

    In short, how are you going to sustain a league where travel costs (Edmonton, Puerto Rico, Montreal!) are out of control, 1/2 of the teams are financially done, 1/2 of the teams are non-US, and there aren't even 8 signed up stable franchises.....................

    NASL, convince me too please.
     
  11. eclipse02

    eclipse02 Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    You must be Rawlins because your the only one defending him. Go back to your hole you D2 Destroyer.
     
  12. BILLSAJA

    BILLSAJA New Member

    May 17, 2010
    Club:
    Sheffield Wednesday FC
    Yep, I'm convinced. Thanks
     
  13. CCSUltra

    CCSUltra Member+

    Nov 18, 2008
    Cleveland
    Club:
    Hertha BSC Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This. Exactly. The NASL was started by a bunch of owners who decided to throw a temper tantrum. USL definitely had problems with how it was run; there's no doubt about that. However, people try to make USL out to be this big bad entity that is actively seeking to destroy soccer in the United States. Yet everyone acts as if NASL is just a godsend to American soccer that never would do anything wrong. There are serious issues that NASL has to face. People are ignoring that. Teams are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars playing in a national D2 league. These things need to be fixed.

    Phil Rawlins had every right to move the team from Austin. Nobody wants to see a team move, but I understand his reasoning for doing so. That said, he did not do it in a proper way. There should have been an open discussion about the problems the team was facing.

    Rawlins moving the team was a business decision.
     
  14. eclipse02

    eclipse02 Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    Its the way he did it that is the problem.

    But according to you it was ok for Art Moddell to move the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore and bring a Super Bowl Trophy to Baltimore.
     
  15. The Irish Rover

    The Irish Rover Member+

    Aug 1, 2010
    Dublin
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    How about a rule that an owner launching a team in a city at D3 or higher in a USSF-sanctioned league has to commit to a minimum of 5 years in that city, and that city alone. If he can't make $ and decides to fold the team, fine, but he still can't
    a) start, own shares in or act as a director of a new team until the 5 years are up
    b) transfer/sell the squad en bloc to another new team (the team is transfer-listed and sold as individuals - no more than 4 to any team)
    c) retain the rights to the team name, crest or logos (will revert to the league to offer to any new investor in that market)
    d) retain or destroy the team's mailing list, esp STHs,(whill also rever to the league)

    Rules like this would make investors think twice before starting a team andmake the one who do a) more committed to a market once they start, and b) more likely to do some damm market research before doing so.

    I doubt the Aztex fans would be so bitter if Rawlins were to say in 2013 "I need 7k paying fans per game to break-even, and only then with a stadium with parking and concessions income (including alcohol). I gave the Austin market 5 years and could could only get 5.5k aversage attendance in Austin. Building a stadium would be only adding to the losses already incurred, with no prospect of a return. I have therefore decided to relocate the team and the coaching staff to Orlando, etc, etc"
     
  16. eclipse02

    eclipse02 Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    That is something I can Agree with.
     
  17. BILLSAJA

    BILLSAJA New Member

    May 17, 2010
    Club:
    Sheffield Wednesday FC
    No arguments there - a 5 year commitment or "you can't own elsewhere" would make a lot of sense and weed out uncommitted owners and prevent spur of the moment decisions.

    I think (or wonder out loud if) the "Rawlings to Austin" move in 2008 fitted with what the league (USL) wanted at the time, when it already had two presences in the Florida market (and who knows if the then-nascent Tampa franchise made Orlando a part of their market).

    It really does suck for Austin, but they seem to have a solid base there and hopefully someone else can be found to take up the mantle of ownership, and maybe now the City will make a more concerted effort to help out with crucial revenue matters such as SSS, concessions etc.
     
  18. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    All good ideas IMHO, though what Marcos and Holt really want is making money on selling expansion franchises
     
  19. eclipse02

    eclipse02 Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    That is why the USSF have to step up and enforce better management and get rid of these get rich quick Scheme. They Need to Create Stability. USSF is working on D2 and the USL better watch out and clean up their act. Because once they get D2 straighten out and will be on D3 ass.
     
  20. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    Totally agree, the USSF needs to create stability not only in D2 BUT ALSO IN D3
     
  21. houndguy

    houndguy New Member

    Sep 5, 2001
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Agreed. I've been following the USL in its various forms for over 15 years now, and it's the same story over and over again.

    Having the USL decided on D3 status first before talking about regional leagues and expansion was there way of sidestepping the USSF. I won't be at all surprised if the league starts with 20 teams and ends with 15, then in 2012 will be back to 10 or 12.
     
  22. chapka

    chapka Member+

    May 18, 2004
    Haverford, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The problems with the USISL/USL ownership model, as it existed prior to last season, has nothing to do with profit. In fact, that was the problem: the USL didn't need profitable teams in order to make money.

    The USL didn't take a cut of the profits: they took a cash payment, up front, in the form of expansion fees and league fees. They were also the ones making all league decisions. This distorted their incentives.

    If I came to the USL in 2008 and told them I wanted to put a team in Boise, the league had no incentive to ask anything except for whether my check for the expansion fee and the first year's league fee had cleared. The league would rather that I succeeded so that I could keep paying them league fees year after year, but they'd rather I paid an expansion fee, then failed, than that I never tried.

    The individual teams in the league might prefer stability for business reasons; they might prefer not to add a trip to Boise to their schedule; they might prefer not to have to play away games in a sub-par stadium; and so on.

    But these second-order effects, while they may have hurt the league in the long run, didn't make up for the check I was waving in the league's face in the short run--and so I would get my franchise. That's how the USISL went through ninety-four different franchises in six years. Only three of those teams survive today, but the USL's owners didn't have to give the expansion fees back when they failed.

    Now, the USL-Pro management changes, with a commissioner and some team input, may fix this. But I think it's tough to argue that it wasn't a problem that needed fixing.
     

Share This Page