The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

The Virginia Beach Mariners had a PDL affiliate called the Virginia Beach Submariners.

 

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Whoa.

Is that supposed to be a zodiac killer reference?

 

I had the same question. If it is, it's socal using the reference to mess with nocal? That's scary creepy.
Just to get back on topic, promotion and relegation, eh?

 

Yeah, now that you mention it, those are kind of weird, too. Chicago is probably "ancient history" enough to not require a trigger warning or anything (like Pompeii Volcanoes or something), but earthquakes are a pretty clear and present danger for San Jose's faithful.

 

It's not a good year to root for the Carolina Hurricanes.

A friend of mine working with me at the Greensboro paper had a great comment the first year of the Hurricanes' existence. They rolled out a pig mascot, and he mentioned that between the state's hog lagoons and hurricanes, the team had covered both of the state's ongoing environmental disaster.

Some people got a little angry about that.

 

Ok, if MLS were to adopt pro rel, I have a solution. MLS is the top division, obviously.
Second division is split in to two, USL and NASL. Name of course is irrelevant as long as the idea is intact. But we will roll with them as examples. USL is east coast and central, NASL is west coast and mountain. Western conference MLS teams get relegated to NASL, eastern conference to USL. One team each.

But here’s a twist, USL and NASL are then further divided in to conferences based on geography. Two conference winners in each leagues meet in the championship game to determine champion to determine promoted team. In each league of course.USL League one and two, NASL league one and two, can be for reserve teams.
As far Stadium right ewuirement, MLS, USL and NASL adopt common standard, 15000 seats minimum.

 

So we're just a few decades away from that being remotely possible, all else being equal. Swell.

 

The USL already has very little inter-conference play in the regular season. For all intents and purposes it's already two regional leagues.

As for the 15,000 seat minimum... that's not going to happen for a long time. Even the biggest clubs in the USL mostly play in stadiums under 15,000 seats.

 

There is no NASL.

 

I'm late to this, but the OC Zodiac was founded as an affiliate for the Galaxy, one of the first attempts for MLS to have a minor-league offshoot, so it seems it simply was another star-themed name.

 

I posted this in the expansion thread and thought I'd repost it here:

I just had a disturbing thought.

What if the plan is to have current MLS eventually be Division 2? One day in the future, Garber and the MLS front office could announce that they will be splitting the league in two. This new level, called MLS-Premiere would have a salary cap of $30-50 million, increasing in $10 million increments each year until the cap reaches $100 million. They would allow a maximum of 18 teams, and if more than that want to join the first season, then there would be an additional level-up fee of $50 million that existing owners would have to pay. Any owner who balks could just play under the current salary cap in the second level.

That would pretty much leave a number of the current MLS clubs on the outside looking in (*cough*ColoradoChicago*cough*), but you could probably guarantee that Atlanta, NYCFC, Toronto, LAFC, LAG, and Seattle would join, with some of the newer MLS3.0 clubs with owners with big ambitions, like Nashville and Miami...

Is something like this possible or legal under the current MLS charter?

 

Throughout Canada, actually.

This might be stronger, though.

 

In 1992 the owners of the English Northern League team Blue Star tried to get around tiresome pro/rel rules by purchasing the struggling Football League team Maidstone United and moving them 300 miles north to Newcastle.

This was after the Northern League had held out against joining the national pyramid, where they would have dropped a level becoming a feeder to the new Alliance (now National) League.

When the Northern League was eventually forced to join the pyramid in 1991 it was admitted at level 7.

Blue Star and the rest of the league had suffered a double relegation without a ball being kicked which led to the bid to buy a place in the EFL.

And I thought these things only happened in North America.

 

No. But if it were the owners of the cough clubs own just as much of MLS as the owners of the 3.0 clubs, so they'd have to be on board. If in your scenario, the coughers would find themselves on the outside looking in, but keeping their share of the cash flow without the hassle of having to put together a competitive side, I'm sure they could be convinced.

 

Hmmm, if there was no difference in cash flow, what would be the incentive for those clubs to try and improve? I could see my above mentioned MLS-P ownerships going for broke based on wanting bragging rights of being the best, they should be rewarded somehow. Iirc, the league pays for $4 million of the salary cap, correct? Maybe for teams in MLS-P, the league could pay for $8 million of the Salary cap (or whatever is double the cap of MLS as it increases year over year). Last year there were 17 teams that had a total salaries of over 8 million, you could make half the league right there.

 

But this notion is taking something away from someone who has no obligation to release it. The bottom line in this is that everyone owning an MLS club wants to win. Some owners just suck at it. But I don't see them agreeing to not take the bigger payday.

 

I really want to believe that but there are some teams that don't come off like that at all. Obviously a coach or GM is going to want to win because it "might" cost them their job.

 

Why "might"? Consistent losers in the management ranks always get their walking papers, even when it's difficult to impossible to lay the blame on their actions. Sometimes it might take a bit longer than fans want, but those same fans will be the ones praising an owner's patience if the team starts winning in three 3.
I suppose there are circs in which it might look like owners don't care about winning, ManU might be the classic under the Glasers. But even there, if we assume that they do care about the money they make off the brand, they would actually want to win.
Mastroeni lasted quite a while in Denver, but he did have some success and give ownership a reason to think he might figure it out. Same for Paunovic (is that right?) in Chicago. Far more common is for managers to be fired before they've had a chance even to get their system going. The worst owners, IMO, are the type who fire manager after manager. which leads eventually to teams that are a jumble of unmatched players intended for a jumble of different systems. Eventually, managers are fired because their team looks like a mess, but of course it is. Still, those managers want to win, adn their owners want to win. They just have no clue how to do it. A classic example is Sunderland. We all watched the series and saw that Short seemed to abandon the club, but before the series kicked off, he was spending a shit ton of money to win (spending it poorly) and firing managers left and right (often unwisely). The dumpster fire he created was born out of a desire to win.
The club of my childhood, Reading, are a total disaster these days, born out of the idiocy of a way too long string of owners (English, Russian, English, Thai, Chinese, since 2010) all of whom wanted to win and return the club to its glory, well, year (2006, first ever promotion to top tier). The result of all that misguided desire is a shambles lurching back towards the 3rd that is pretty much entirely reliant upon the generosity of rich folk.
People who have a lot of money and don't want to win can find much better investments than a football club. As in, pretty much anything else.

 

Have you been following the Chicago Fire at all in the past 10 years?
Andrew Hauptman and Andell, LLC have done nothing to indicate they "want to win."

He is a vulture capitalist and this was just another money making scheme.
Buy a team in a huge market that was undervalued (he paid between $35-39 million in 2007), sit on the "investment" (adding as little value as possible), watch the "investment" grow as the league expanded and mushroomed and "cash in" when the value was high (he sold 49% of the team in 2018).

There was no "wanting to win," or at least no actual effort to compile a winning team (except for 2017).

Tell that the Nelson 'shady' Rodriguez.
Damn near ruined New York (team's record under his tutelage: 15-17, 7-25, overall: 22-0-42).
Folded Chivas USA (team's record: 9-6-19).
Has been actively dismantling the Chicago Fire for over three years now (team's record 7-10-17, 16-7-12, 8-8-18, overall: 31-25-47, 1 playoff loss).
In his 6 years of running teams, his teams have had 1 winning season and average of 18 losses per season.
Only twice have his teams even won 10+ games in a season (and one of those season was the MetroStars team he inherited).
The combined record of the teams he has been running: 62-31-108. 62 wins out of 201 games. Average of 1.08 ppg.
217 points out of 603 points available.
He has been a VERY VERY consistent loser.

It is absolutely imperative to lay the blame on his actions.

Paunovic has been the single worst coast in Chicago Fire history.
His overall record in 31-25-46.
His player selection has been abysmal (dumping Sean Johnson with no replacement GK-still none 3 years later, dumping Joevin Jones, with no replacement, dumping Harry Shipp, with no replacement, etc.).
His player management skills are atrocious (playing the $6,000,000 Schweinsteiger at CB, when there were perfectly acceptable CB players on the bench? Criticizing Alexander Katai in every game that he did not score?)
His tactics are inept.

He had one year of relative success, when the Fire had 8 DP-level players and, essentially, Schweinsteiger and McCarty basically just stopped listening to him and ran the team on the field.
Oh, by "relative success," I mean the Fire lost their first playoff game and went home.

 

Okay, you're a Fire supporter so I feel your pain. Actually, I became a KC supporter in MLS in 96, so I mock it. But I back Reading from childhood and Union Berlin as my current local team, so I do understand it.
Using Forbes figures on the Fire's 2018 revenue: The Fire made $27 million yet had an operating income of -$12 million, meaning they lost that much on their investment in 2018. Now it's easy to see that they also have made money as the value of the club has increased to an estimated $245m, but they spent more money than they made, meaning more than they had to, meaning they actually were trying to win. They just sucked at it.
They paid out $14.8m in 2018 total compensation to players, according to the MLSPA, which is the only source on any of this stuff but sure seems legit. It's the fourth highest payroll in MLS. If they were paying out a third of that, you'd have a better case. As it stands, they simply have no idea what they were doing. I will note that their salary is far more big or nothing than several other clubs I've looked at. Still, that indicates a strategy, even if it is a crap one.
I thought Paunovic was trying everything this year, but I admit I watched through German eyes (they love Chicago here, because they love Schweinie).

 

1. Those "losses" are paper losses only, and do not take into account the appreciation of the "asset," nor do they taken into account that by selling 49% of the team (probably for about $120,000,000), Andrew Hauptman managed to recoup his original "investment" four times over already (and, likely, wiping any paper losses he may have had over the past 11 years), and still has 51% of the team to piss away.
Also, for a team in the third largest market to have the 6th smallest revenue is horrible in its own right.

2. They did have the fourth highest payroll, but it has become quite apparent that the bulk of Bastian Schweinsteiger's $6,000,000 salary (over 40% of the total) is NOT being paid by the team, but being paid by sponsors (read: Adidas and MLS). Also, Chicago's second highest earner in 2018, Yura Movsisyan, (over $2,000,000 a year, 13.5% of the total salary), was a late season addition who managed to appear in 4 games. His salary was also likely paid by the league and certainly not be the Fire.
Basically, $8,000,000 of that $14.8 million was likely outside money and not from the Fire at all.

3. Paunovic is a crap coach. He tried "everything" except: 1) signing players to fill out the team and fill the gaping holes in the team, 2) playing players at their best positions, and 3) allowing any consistency and cohesiveness develop.

4. I, too, love Chicago and Schweinsteiger.
On behalf of Chicago, I wish to apologize to Germany for the horrible waste of Bastian's considerable talent while he has been in Chicago.

 

Which is a perfect illustration of how difficult it is to win, even for the richest club on earth (by a pretty wide margin). It's hard to argue against Pogba being trully a great player. It's hard to argue that Mou doesn't win. It is obvious now they were never going to work well together. It's obvious now, but it seemed like a great idea when they plonked down $120m. I really think each of those managers, (well the 3 do, giggs and ole are interims and with that tag don't prove any point beyond waiting), also indicate a desire to win. Moyes ended quickly and sadly but he was the "it" manager of the moment when they grabbed him. LVG was an odd choice, but he is a bit of a managing legend, and with Mou they knew very well they were bringing the circus in, but with all the theatrics there had always been a substantial amount of winning. BTW, while as a rule I am not a fan of ManU i always liked the little guy, nice to see him doing well.
Which is a long way of saying that if the richest, biggest club on the planet can suck, for years on end, on putting together a plan, it's not a surprise that Chicago or Colorado will struggle at the same task. ManU in sixth place is, after all, at least the equivalent of Chicago in dead last (revenue to results). What I recall about Paunovic and Chicago last winter window wasn't a lack of effort to bring in players, but a total failure to convince targets to join. Maybe they brought them to Chicago in the winter? Maybe they were all covered in the 100 mph sleet that's such a lovely part of a Chicago winter, and all froze to death?