So today, I read the Bergin report stating that there are 4 teams, including Rochester, to be added in 2005, then I hear there was no mention of Rochester in Garber's address, but yet there is nothing on the MLS.net website, yet the Garber address talked about possibly 3 teams and maybe 4 teams in 2005, and that Cleveland was given a team, but no mention of when... yada yada yada does anyone have an actual report with facts about what happened today?
The truth... from Bergin? Bergin is the Anglophone's answer to the LA daily La Opinion, which prints ANY-THING and has caused quite a few suicides of BS posters.
From more highly credible sources, it was reported about two weeks ago that Rochester asked the A league to prepare two schedules for 2004, one with them in it and one with them not in it. The thinking was that if Vergara pushed very hard and MLS felt it had to give him a team in 2004, that Rochester would be put into the east because they have a team, a place to play, a plan for a new stadium and a fan base. (Plus, there is sh!t else to do in Rochester). It now seems like Vergara will hold off until 2005, which would allow Chivas and Cleveland to be the 2005 expansion teams, which makes Rochester feel like asscakes for nearly leaving a league and then staying there for 4 more years until MLS is ready to expand again in 2007 or so. Hence, the talk about adding 4 teams in 2005, but that is all talk. As mentioned, trust Chris Bergin about as far as you can throw him ("and Ed, with your bad back you shouldn't be throwing anyone"). MLS will make an official annoucement- they say- in the next two weeks. Until then, we all just have to chill. I think eventually Rochester, Portland and Seattle will have their A league teams promoted virtually intact, and you could get a Canadian team (current "it" team is Toronto) into MLS as well. So, if you have A league stock, we're downgrading that to a "neutral".
bs. i dont trust it until i see the bergin has posted it. and Thats what Garber said, quoted. He didnt say it was fact, he quoted garber. Either way, Rochester is 90% in according to reports, maybe even 100%. Cleveland is already in and OKC is right with Rochester. i dont know in final.
I'm hoping for Rochester, Chivas, Cleveland, and OKC in 2005. And then Seattle and Philly/New York City for 2007.
How could we add a Canadian team? Isn't that against FIFA rules? Didn't they already claim that a Candaian team cannot play in the US 1st division?
I said "could", I didn't say it was a lock. There was talk about it because Toronto is in the midst of funding a new stadium for soccer, and Garber was supposedly interested. You'll remember there was also talk of Rangers and Celtic playing in the Premiership, so the discussion at least isn't totally out of line. There are four teams playing in the A league that are Canadian right now. I think, properly incented, FIFA would allow a few into MLS. As both Canada and the US are growth markets without the established leagues of other countries, I think it could be worked out as long as the winners took part in the Peace Cups and other stupid club events FIFA comes up with that make them money. Ever think that in 25 years there could be an American Premier League with teams from the US, Canada and Mexico in it? Chicago Fire vs. Cruz Azul...etc? Teams do what is in their best financial interest, I wouldn't be surprised if we see that someday, 30 years from now. Or maybe just an American (North and Cental) & Caribbean Champions league?
The thing about a second NYC team stems from the fact that Metro play in and cater to Jersey fans. With the team building a new stadium deeper in Jersey, it really solidifies them as a Jersey squad playing near NY. But NYC has no team, in reality. If someone could put a team in NYC proper (not Long Island or Westchester) I think it could do well, but that's really 10 years down the line, if not later. Philly needs a team, and it would make the DC-Philly-Metro-NE corridor a pretty cool place for soccer. Rochester is really far away from NYC, and it would be an "upstate" team, supported by those from Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany (though Salty Dog fans may have a hard time supporting Rochester in MLS, they can always turn up to root against them ). Rochester doesn't translate to stealing Metro fans, no one south of Albany roots for the Bills, and many in Albany root for the Giants anyway. I don't think it's a problem, nor do I think it tips the scales too heavily. California has a huge population, I think 3 teams is a deserving number as LA and SJ/SFO are very far away, and an LA-SD rivalry could be pretty intense. New York can get by on Metro and Rochester, certainly for now. As the league fills out towards it's goal of 20 teams, you may see a second NYC team in there, but I doubt it.
Factiod....California is the world's 5th largest economy. What's really scary though is that it's run by Arnold!!!(What are our voters thinking?). California is bigger and richer than 90% of the world, I think it can support 3 MLS teams spread out across the state.
Just to illustrate how far it is, I did a mapquest search on driving distance between Rochester and East Rutheford, NJ. Rochester to Giants Stadium = 329 Miles Foxboro, MA to Giants Stadium = 204 Miles RFK Stadium to Giants Stadium = 224 Miles. That's right, kids. it's 105 Miles FURTHER from Rochester to NYC than it is from DC. New York is a big state. Also, Rochester is 258 Miles from Cleveland and 394 from Columbus.
Rochester is 391 miles from Foxboro, MA. Rochester to GS is about 330, you're right. So, it's ~6 hours (with stops) to Giants Stadium, and about 7 hours to Foxboro. You can drive it, but it's a haul. Rochester would, I think, be a bigger rivalry for Cleveland than the Metro, just on proximity.
I'll bet you that most of these are up in the top 10 or 20 too... New York, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Illinois...
Easy...it will be good for MLS if the team has a good ownership situation and a good stadium situation. Just like every other freakin' team. The NBA has 4 Cali teams, out of, what, 29? The NHL has 4 "New York" teams by your standards, and while the NHL has problems, that ain't it. When the Rams were in LA, the NFL had 4 Cali teams, out of 28 (then). Also, the NFL has 3 teams in Florida, which has less than HALF of Cali's population. Baseball has 5 Cali teams, out of 30. So I don't see 3 teams out of 16 as being one of the signs of the apocalypse.
Thanks for the responses. From the outside looking in, it has the appearance that Rochester was used by the league in an effort to move on the league's real expansion hopes. I have to believe that all this talk about the distance that Rochester is to other MLS cities is moot, since it appears that the only plan MLS has for Rochester is to continually use it as a pawn to get its real expansion ducks in a row. From what I am reading on the Rhinos' website, this is not the first time that the Rhinos were used by the league in this fashion. If you ask me, this past weekend proved that expansion was never really about soccer specific stadiums at all, but rather it's really about investors and TV markets.
Yes and no. MLS wants markets like Houston, Philly and Seattle, but needs the right situation. MLS really does want Rochester in the league, but wants to get the $$ from bigger metro areas first. In fact, within the past 3 years MLS (on its own, not a request from the A-league teams) was trying to bring in both the Rochester Rhinos and Charleston Battery with some kind of way to adjust for revenue differences for the smaller markets. Unfortunately the $ shortfall was too much to overcome. I can tell you that MLS does want Rochester for the soccer, not the media, aspects of the region. I learned this while spending 18 holes with the Commish at a charity golf outing a year ago.
The Rhinos people (Frank DuRoss and Chris Economides) are still very hush hush about the MLS move and won't make any comments on it. They said that we will know by Nov. 30th. We do know that FDR has been meeting with Rochester billionaire and Sabres owner Thomas Golisano for the past week though.