USL and NASL news 2018

Not sure if this will make anyone feel better:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In 2018 we will have looser partnerships w/ a few teams. For future, working with a group in Hartford who are trying to get a USL team</p>&mdash; Brian Bilello (@RevsPrez) <a href="

In 2018 we will have looser partnerships w/ a few teams. For future, working with a group in Hartford who are trying to get a USL team

— Brian Bilello (@RevsPrez) December 17, 2017

">December 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Far be it for me to be a Grammar Nazi, but an MIT grad ought to know how to spell "loser." As in, "we will have loser partnerships, just like the ones we had with Ra-cha-cha and Sporting, that clearly demonstrated just what kind of losers we really are in this area."

 

In 2018 we will have looser partnerships w/ a few teams.

Translation: We have no formal agreements with anybody. We didn't use the affiliate we had an agreement with, so you shouldn't expect us to be any different with teams we don't have agreements with.

I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of the Boston media. They ignore the Revs completely, as their only focus are the Patriots. The Revs on the other hand love the situation. The front office stays under the radar, bumbles along and except for a hand full of people on this forum, nobody knows any different.

 

It's all about word choice.

"We Are Working" better serves Revs, as it obfuscates whether they are succeeding yet or not.

"We Are Trying" was too transparent for Revs, as it is commonly interpreted to mean "we've not yet had any success."

 

I like the southern way of phrasing things. The term "fixin' to" is always the precursor to actually doing anything.

So they could say "We're fixin' to start thinking about having a meeting to brainstorm about considering to have a plan for signing a couple (but not too many) new players this winter."

They're just "fixin' to" do it--they didn't actually take the first step just yet. Gotta measure....

 

The prospect of an affiliation with a Hartford USL team sounds promising, but it's too bad they are waiting for someone else to do it - and that's it not a reality yet.

 

While a Hartford affiliate would be far more convenient than Rochester, it's still problematic if the Revs don't have total control over the club. I want the Revs dictating how our affiliate is playing from a style perspective, who is getting minutes, etc.

 

Agreed. If the Krafts really wanted to do something smart, they'd just buy the Rhinos.
Not gonna happen, I know.

 

The main site crashed, so we are publishing this here:

Breaking: @IndyEleven to join the @USL in 2018:. Latest for @SocTakes https://t.co/Lobf3To9Xw pic.twitter.com/poo9eZzgtV

— Nipun Chopra, PhD (@NipunChopra7) January 6, 2018

 

That doesn't happen in the US/Canada apart from maybe LA or a handful of top clubs that get it.

 

Aren't some USL teams directly controlled by MLS teams?

 

Seven USL teams are a II, as in LA Gals II.

 

Bethlehem Steel FC - owned and operated by Keystone Sports & Entertainment, the parent company of the Philadelphia Union.

Los Angeles Galaxy II - owned and operated by Anschutz Entertainment Group, the parent company of the Los Angeles Galaxy.

New York Red Bulls II - owned and operated by Red Bull GmbH, the parent company of the New York Red Bulls.

Orlando City B - owned and operated by Orlando City SC.

Portland Timbers 2 - owned and operated by Peregrine Sports LLC, the parent company of the Portland Timbers.

Real Monarchs - owned and operated by Dell Loy Hansen, owner of Real Salt Lake.

Seattle Sounders FC 2 - owned and soccer operations run by Seattle Sounders FC, with day-to-day business operations run by the Baseball Club of Tacoma (aka the Tacoma Rainiers).

Swope Park Rangers - owned and operated by Sporting Club, the parent company of Sporting Kansas City.

Toronto FC II - owned and operated by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, the parent company of Toronto FC.

Additionally, a pair of expansion franchises are set to join the United Soccer League in 2018, both of which will be owned and operated by entities with ties to Major League Soccer teams.

Atlanta USL - owned and operated by Arthur Blank, owner of Atlanta United FC.

Nashville SC -owned and operated by DMD Soccer, which is majority-owned by John Ingram's Nashville Holdings LLC, the parent company for Major League Soccer's recently-awarded Nashville expansion team.

 

I disagree - they are too far apart and there is on natural affinity between the two clubs.

 

It's roughly 1/3 of the teams in the league now.

 

Distance and affinity wouldn't matter much if they have control.
To use a different sport as an example, the Yankees AAA team is in Scranton.

 

USL has an expansion announcement this afternoon.
Interestingly, Jacksonville Armada haa a press conference scheduled just a little earlier in the day.

 

That's not a good example - Scranton is only a 2 hour drive (and is easily accessible by public transportation). Basically, it's equivalent to Boston <-> Hartford.

I work with people in Rochester and go there a few times/year - it's not close or easy to get to - and the Rhinos fans I know there have no special affinity for the Revs (and, I think the association we had with the Empire clubs isn't still in effect, but I'm not sure about that). One of the guys I worked with coached with them and said he basically had nothing to do with the Revs.

The Red Sox have farm teams close and far, but there is clearly a lot more affinity with the nearby teams (Pawtucket, Lowell, Portland). Celtics and Bruins have their teams within 2 hours. There's no reason the Revs should be looking to set up or associate with teams further than NE - having a USL team in NE would build interest in both clubs, unlike Rochester, Pittsburgh, ...