Up until now, I've remained cautiously optimistic about Republic getting into MLS. It sounds like negotiations with "whales" have been real, and we've already checked all the boxes (supposedly). However, it has become abundantly clear that MLS, in no way, shape, or form, wants Sacramento in the league, and that they've only used us as a staking horse all along. They brought in Nashville, which had not checked any boxes until their whale appeared. They just anointed Austin, with no history of support, no actual stadium plan, just because of the give away to Precourt. And now it looks very likely St. Louis is going to get the 28th spot, because MLS has long coveted that market. And assuming Nagle nabs the whale, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that MLS will come up with some other criteria that we have to meet, or we have to wait years for the next round of expansion, or they'll simply double or triple the expansion fee. Don Garber is a low life, lying, manipulative, scum of the earth, and I actively pray (even though I'm not a religious person) for the swift demise of MLS and Don Garber's career.
To go along with my above super bitter post, I'm ecstatic to have Republic in USL. USL is a great league that values fans, contrasted with MLS' only valuing billionaires to feed their pyramid scheme business plan. And there is little separation in quality of play - I've seen plenty of games in both, including head-to-head exhibition games, and most USL teams, and especially Republic, are right there with any MLS team. Going forward, I think Republic FC should go full force on being the best possible USL franchise it can be, and build a stadium at the railyards (with lower, but expandable capacity), and grow along with the rapidly growing and improving USL. I also like the fact that USL emphasizes developing young talent as opposed to overpaying on huge contracts for aging Euro/SA stars (beyond Beckham, a proven failed strategy). Sure, they can keep the whales negotiation going (whatever status that's at - they're not telling), but the whole MLS thing has to be on the back-burner, if not withdrawn entirely (it's silly to continue to be the staking horse, or perpetual brides maid). So I'll happily support my Republic FC, and continue following my fav Euro teams - Everton, Borussia Dortmund, PSG. And lying Garber can go stick it.
I heard Garber was a nice guy and although I give him credit for some things he has done , I haven't trusted him since December 15th, 2005. The day he let AEG move the Earthquakes to Houston.
Well, Garber might be a nice guy, and he is probably just the "front" for the desires of the BOG. So my ire should not logically be focused on him. Putting my bias and emotions aside, and on a completely different tack than Republic to MLS - I strongly believe MLS has to change it's business strategy. The league is over 20 years old, and quite frankly it needs to get out of "investment mode" and start making money on it's own, and not rely on the current pyramid scheme for investors to make money. Quite literally, most clubs are still losing money, but the owners/investors make money in the long run on expansion fees, or the long range ability to sell their stake at a profit. But there are only so many new investors that can be brought in - that well is going to dry up sooner or later. And yes, getting an MLS expansion is "hot" right now, giving Garber and BOG all the leverage, and they can do whatever they want. But it is foolish for them, in the long run, to get super arrogant as they are, and only valuing billionaire investors to feed the pyramid, because eventually it will blow up in their face. What MLS needs more than anything is fans, and fan loyalty. That's hard to win, because the best soccer - EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, Mexican Apertura, League 1, CL, etc. are all readily available in the States, both on TV and with summer exhibition tours. So how do they win fan loyalty? Well, not by how they've treated Sacramento, or SJ back in the day, or the cluster that was the Columbus situation. And it's not by overpaying on aging world stars - American fans aren't stupid, they know when stars have seen their best days. The answer is basic business practice - go where there is demand and enthusiasm, not where there are just whale investors. The league can only built on the fans' enthusiasm. All the media market size, deep pocketed investors, and aging stars won't amount to a hill of beans without fan enthusiasm. Going to places like Miami, Nashville, and Austin (all great cities in their own right), where there is no proven demand for MLS or proven fan enthusiasm, and going there just because of Beckham or whale investors, is not a winning long term strategy. This circles back to my original bitter post - praying for the demise of MLS and Garber's career. I not only say that as a bitter SRFC fan, but as a concerned soccer fan in general. I believe, in the big picture, that MLS' business practices are holding back development of soccer in the United States. Soccer has grown tremendously here, in spite of, not because of, MLS. I'd like MLS to either drastically change it's ways, or to just blow up, so something better can rise from the ashes.
I love it when posters type something that clearly demonstrates their lack of intelligence and understanding towards the beginning of a long post. Most people can see, after reading this part, that you have no idea what your talking about and stopped reading at this point, so the loooong remainder of this post was probably skipped, thus making the time you spent on that a total waste of time!
Wow, question someone's intelligence just because you disagree with them. Kind says something about your intelligence. That said, I'll fully own the fact that my above posts are extremely emotional, and really not my most well thought out reasoning, because, well, I'm extremely pissed about the situation. Now, I wouldn't be pissed if Sacramento didn't already check all the boxes (record breaking attendance, large media market, sponsorships in line, stadium ready to be build, MLS' most desirable demographic is strong, extremely strong soccer market, etc). The one remaining box, which was actually publicly introduced to the Sacramento public at the end of last year, is the need for a whale investor that is willing to lose money for quite some time, i.e. long term investor. This could very well be a reason Meg Whitman dropped out at the eleventh hour (she is very much a whale investor, but probably didn't want to be expected to lose money for the foreseeable future). I don't know what was discussed behind the scenes, but December of last year was the first we heard of the requirement for that level of investment. But I'll bite - what you quoted from my post, what you are stating I know nothing of what I'm talking about, what is so wrong about it? Does MLS not still lose money overall (apart from a few clubs)? Do current owners not benefit from incoming expansion fees? If the business model is currently losing money, with some investment recuperated from incoming expansion fees, is that not basically a pyramid scheme (if not in pure definition, but in spirit and practice)? And being that you're a New York City FC fan, your club is the embodiment of MLS' expansion criteria being largely bullsh!t. One of those criteria is Soccer Specific Stadium. Oops! NYCFC plays in Yankee stadium! Now, I have nothing against NY getting a second franchise - it's a huge city and I love New York (was just there in August). But soccer in a baseball stadium? C'mon! The point is not to criticize on your club being there, but to criticize on MLS' criteria BS.
Yeah, probably. It's emotional. Having a top flight league has benefited soccer's growth here, for sure. That said, I think there is a whole lot that MLS could, and should do better.
That decision wasn't Garber's to make or deny. He's an employee, not the boss, of the folks making those kinds of decisions.
Deep pocketed investor/ownership groups was always part of the criteria. That wasn't something that MLS just pulled out of thin air at the 11th hour in order to deny Sac Republic a team. MLS teams cost a lot of money to operate. It also costs a lot of money to operate a competitive team in today's MLS landscape. It's not just having money for a stadium in a prime location, or nice USL attendance numbers (which isn't even part of the criteria). Teams these days need state of the art tream/training facilities and youth academies. Those aren't cheap to build, let alone operate year over year. From rumored reports Whitman walked away b/c she wanted more say and control over how her money was going to be spent in the project. Nagle, apparently, at the time wasn't willing to cede that control. Whether that is/was true, I don't know, but that's what was floating around the MLS interwebs. Also, if MLS was only interested in Billionaire owners..........Detroit would have gotten an expansion team this go round. Hopefully Sacramento finds it's deep pocketed investor and gets a team. They'd be a good addition to MLS.
I always question when billionaires cry about “losing money”. Aside from the fact that I hope none of the MLS owners really ever lose money, how much do they lose? They all pretty much by now own and control their own stadiums and the money that is earned from other events held at those venues is all profit for the owners. If those revenues aren’t reported on the businesss soccer side of things, are they really losing that much in the end? Even the Gaps John Fisher who owns the Earthquakes who has been running a dirt cheap organization is building a huge business park (and I believe retail mall when it’s all completed) around Avaya Stadium. I just drove by there an hour ago and it’s looking like a state of the art facility. To think or believe that this guy is losing money from his soccer team is ludicrous. Maybe he isn’t making what Arthur Blank or Uncle Phil make but he is still making money.
You make a lot good points. Detroit is a good example - they have very huge whales, but a football stadium (curious that MLS allowed a team to play their home games in a baseball stadium). It goes to show you that MLS' criteria really doesn't mean that much, and the criteria is more like general guidelines, subject to the BOG's daily whims. But I do find it sad, if true, that "nice USL attendance" (I wouldn't describe Republic's attendance numbers merely as "nice"- "Stellar" would be more accurate), isn't even part of the criteria. In my book, it should be the number one criteria. Full stop. All the other stuff, while "nice to have", and important (billionaire investors, market size, corporate support, soccer specific stadium plan, etc) , doesn't amount to anything if nobody in that market gives a crap about your product. *cough" Miami *cough*. Basic business 1-A and market driven economics - go where there is demand. And there is a lot of competition - not only all the other sports leagues in the U.S., but more importantly the readily available and easily accessible big Euro leagues. MLS can't compete with the big Euros in money or depth of talent or quality of play, but Garber and the BOG thinks they can spend enough to do so, which is a fools errand. But what they can compete with is local identity, fan enthusiasm and loyalty, and developing home grown talent. And that all starts with making fan attendance and enthusiasm, and local demographics, the top priority for adding franchises.
Fisher is also about to plunk down hundreds of millions to build a new Oakland A's stadium at Howard Terminal - if it goes through, and it looks more likely than any other A's stadium proposal over the last 20 years.
I believe that was stadium the reason on why he hired Quakes president. When that park is done, I’m betting the SF Giants will have rather Fisher moved the Oakland A’s to San Jose.
Whitman nor Nagle was the issue. The previous primary financial backer of the bid is unnamed and dropped out in the final hours before the December presentations. Whitman, like York, always was planned to be a minority investor but was asked by MLS and SRFC FO to become majority owner but when she looked into becoming a majority owner the MLS became a bit iffy on what they were willing to show and tell her so she dropped out completely (from FO personnel). There definitely more to the story but Whitman was not the primary issue and Nagle directly responded to that when that was floated on reddit.
For those that care to look, the writing was on the wall back in January of 2017, when the bids were to be submitted and Nagle's group hadn't even secured the name "Sacramento Republic FC" from Warren Smith's group. See back to about page 90 to 95 on this very thread for some of the gory details. Suffice it to say, Kevin Nagle had almost a sure thing locked up (quite probably Nashville's spot), and they ended up submitting the initial bid without the SRFC name on it, and then having to call in a mediator just to get the name on the fvcking bid ironed out. Just how do you think that was gonna look to the rest of the MLS decision-makers when Nashville and Cincy came in with their zillions of techbucks? Our MLS bid was a 900-pound gorilla with a glass jaw, and that glass jaw's name is Kevin Nagle. And now? Costs have only gone up, including on the stadium and the expansion fee itself, and for that reason we have needed to recruit even new and bigger whales who (if they have even the barest of intelligence that would be required to get to whale-money status) will do their due diligence and find out that Kevin Nagle is still involved with the team, and will perforce decide to invest their money elsewhere. SRFC to MLS is in all likelihood deader than dogshit, and Kevin Nagle (with a big-ass assist from Darrell Steinberg) is directly to blame. Now either pass the bottle or get off our ledge.
The Nagle part has a lot to do with it. Or could it be Warren Smith, who might have played last minute hardball, due to increased valuation of the franchise. Regardless, that whole submital nonsense was just laughable. At that point, I thought they had all their ducks in a row, but clearly they didn't.
We need a HERO to say what this article says, or at least summarize. (i imagine it is something along the lines of we are looking for a whale and our ownership is dedicated to bringing MLS to sacramento......) https://www.bizjournals.com/sacrame...public-fc-confident-as-mls-plans-another.html
"Within the next few months and well before MLS' decision, according to the official, Republic FC will introduce a new investor and investor group to beef up the team's ownership from a financial standpoint." Nothing else new, basically the process going forward is not clear, maybe (definitely) more than 28 according to Garber.