The Providence Steam Roller played in the National Football League from 1925 through 1931. In fact, they were named the league champions in 1928, when they finished the season 8-1-2. Apparently, my great-uncle was a part-owner of the team.
Spain: Barcelona, Real Madrid, Baskonia, Valencia, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, Bilbao, UCAM Murcia, Málaga, Andorra... Italy: Olimpia Milano, Venezia Mestre, Reggio Emilia, Orlandina, JuveCaserta Turkey: Galatasaray, Fenerbahce, Besiktas, Darussafaka, Karsiyaka... Greece: Olympiacos, Panathinaikos, AEK, PAOK... Russia: CSKA, Zenit, Khimki, UNICS, Astana... Israel: Maccabi, Hapoel. Actually, several teams have title sponsors, but no mascots.
Well this just came out today: https://blackyellowpost.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/usl-pushing-major-fees-disregard-clubs-concerns/ Basically, the USL has skipped around their ownership and worked out a bad deal for it's teams for broadcasting equipment, and it's hitting the pockets of the independent, non-MLS affiliated teams the most. And they aren't happy. League going so far as to crackdown on communication between it's own teams to discuss this issue.
I wonder how long Edwards will keep silent on this one. He's not known for playing along, lol. Then again with the MLS bid he probably doesn't want to stir the pot too much for now.
It's pretty sketchy that the owners didn't get a vote and the league is trying to halt communication. However, my gut feeling on it is that the deal might not be a terrible thing. Not due to the way they're handling it but the consistency across the board. Some clubs provide a quality product while some clubs look like they stream matches through a potato. This is certainly a story to keep our eyes on
Just when USL seems to be going in the right direction... they go and do something to piss off their various owners. Comedy of errors of minor league soccer continues.
Jesus, you went there pretty quickly. Not everybody goes and sets the sport back by taking their ball and going home whenever there is a disagreement. First, "anonymous source." I know this is 2017, but child, please. Do better than that. If there was no notice and input on it, that was heavy-handed. But the league has spent a shit-ton of money setting up a dedicated production arm to raise the level of broadcasts (which were uneven, and have been), so I find it curious no one would have any idea they couldn't use Cousin Earl's tricaster to do games anymore. I can see the need for consistency of product. And leagues do deals with vendors league-wide all the time. If Harrisburg or Pittsburgh can't afford to play in the new landscape, see you in Division III.
What evidence do you have for that? From the beginning of the partnership with the USL, MLS has said that they wanted their reserve players (and teams) playing against professional teams, not each other. I have only ever seen one news article saying that MLS didn't want their reserve teams playing in a Division II league. That article offered no source for the statement and it has not appeared anywhere else. And since that article appeared the USL has gained provisional sanctioning as a DII league and MLS has kept their reserve teams and players in the USL. Do we even know what the MLS teams think of this broadcasting deal? The article says: "Basically, the USL has skipped around their ownership and worked out a bad deal for it's teams for broadcasting equipment, and it's hitting the pockets of the independent, non-MLS affiliated teams the most. " Is that even true? Yes, the MLS teams might have more money overall than some of the independent teams but the MLS teams all have some sort of deal to broadcast their MLS games. It is likely that they could have done this more cheaply for the MLS2 teams on their own than through this USL deal. The "independent, non-MLS affiliated teams" part really makes me think the writer of this article has a partisan point of view. Why would it hit non-affiliated teams more than ones with affiliations? Pittsburgh is affiliated with the Columbus Crew which means the Crew loans them a few players. Is Columbus giving them money to pay for this broadcast equipment? I doubt it. So why is Pittsburgh better off than say, Louisville, who is unaffiliated?
Link? Sure other posters have said that, but unless you've got any actual statement from the league, I don't know where you're coming to this position. Please show your work.
If they're talking about USL splitting itself, yes, that makes sense. If we are talking about TOA 2: Electric Boogaloo, no. I am not convinced all of these current USL teams are actually best off in D2. It may be in their best interests to leave some children behind when everything (hopefully) gets resolved at the end of this season. But it's a stretch to go from one blogger's anonymously sourced report to a mutiny because some people were unaware Division 2 is more expensive than Division 3. (All that said, if USL is being heavy handed about it, that would not be a huge surprise either, given the folks involved and how chesty they have gotten lately.)
Yes ... 1,000,000,000 times YES! The problem USL has right now is, do they hurt everyone by splitting too soon and reducing the benefits of regional play? I don't think it's time yet. One issue I see is that EVERYONE wants MLS2 teams to be in DIV3 if they do split USL. MLS likely isn't on board with this not because "they want their MLS2 teams in DIV2" ... but because they would dominate USL D3. Taking out teams like Sacramento, Cinci, Louisville, STL FC, OKC Energy ... and MLS2 teams start playing the lower half "independent" clubs, hurting the development aspect of this arrangement. Ideally, USL grows by another 10-15 teams over the next 3 years and when USL splits teams like Austin & Wilmington come back to D3USL. But within that 3 years, D2USL teams need to create some competitive separation between themselves and MLS2 teams. Obviously this is all "ideal". If MLS2 are still booking trips to the finals ... it will hurt development taking out the top half of the USL independents. Does that ultimately matter to the USL teams? Ofcourse not ... but it does matter to the development of talented younger players, which all 3 leagues need to consider IMO.
I wasn't even thinking of the MLS2 teams, to be honest. I was thinking of Harrisburg and RGV and the like. But some of the developmentals, yeah. Maybe they could have a special pro/rel scheme JUST for the MLS 2 teams? Some of them have been doing pretty well with D3 as it was.
According to the link, the USL made a decision that affects the business of independent team owners. If the MLS wanted to keep them, they wouldn't do that.
Your first sentence appears to be true but it is not limiting. How do we know that the USL decision doesn't affect MLS owners of USL teams? Why would it only affect independent teams? I'm not sure I understand your second sentence. If MLS wanted to keep them? Who is "them"? The independent team owners? That is not up to MLS. Do you mean keep the MLS2 teams in the USL? That is the only thing MLS really has much input on. Who is "they" in the 2nd clause. MLS or USL?
Phoenix Rising new stadium coming along nicely http://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/767086?referral=rss&referrer_id=2364194
Dare we say it's... rising? Seriously though, didn't realize they're building one of those modular deals. These are quickly becoming all the rage in minor league soccer. Which I guess isn't surprising when you consider that they're relatively cheap to build and if the team doesn't make it (which is always a concern in lower level soccer) a municipality isn't stuck with an empty venue. Simply tear it down and re-purpose the empty field.
Yup. Like you said, easy up, easy down. I expect to see more of these in the future as USL mandates SSS I like the enclosed suites PRising is installing on the endline. They'll also have a standing deck on top of them.
What did you think they were doing that would allow them to play in it two weeks from this Friday? Am I missing the others besides Bonney Field? What other minor league teams have thrown up these modular deals recently? Bonney seems to be a little better (and I presume it has undergone some strengthening as long as they've been in it), but nobody should plan to be in one of these things for very long. It's a Frank Youell Field situation (and maybe not quite that good, if you're old enough to get that reference). But they had to do something quickly. I drove by the site on Saturday and didn't see the structure work in place, so they're moving fairly quickly, but, still...they're 16 days out from the opener. That thing has to be ADA compliant and have sufficient infrastructure to at least be an actual, you know, building. And I'm not 100% sure, but I THINK the pieces are from the Phoenix Open seating and suites. Phoenix FC in 2013 used the seats from the Phoenix Open (which are only used for that brief period in January/February) to fill out Sun Devil Soccer Stadium and create what I thought was one of the better D3 environments I'd seen. But they could not afford to continue to rent it all and it gradually came out piece by piece and they finished that first season playing at Reach 11, a local youth complex with a few rows of concrete bleachers that would not have been out of place with General Ursus exhorting the inhabitants of Ape City to go into the Forbidden Zone and kill humans.
Swope Park has one essentially, maybe a little bit more ... but it was constructed as a "championship field" for their Academy teams and now SPR and FCKC play on it. It's been used as the Big 12 soccer tournament venue as well.
The San Diego bid for NASL is apparently incorporating one, Phoenix clearly has one, Swope Park, Bonney as you mentioned. And those are just in the last 3 years. Plus if we go outside "minor league" to MLS we've seen them in Vancouver and San Jose on a short term basis (relatively short term in San Jose's case).
Well, San Diego is one that may or may not happen. I am not sure if Swope Park is truly one, but okay. Vancouver was, surely, because they and the Lions needed it. Santa Clara was an existing stadium that was augmented, not one built from the ground up and not intended to be a permanent facility. I would not count that. That's more of a Naperville situation. I would not call that a rage just yet. You would need a few more to consider this trend to be "all the rage."
Agree that not really "all the Rage" but definitely being considered/proposed/used more & more. If I recall, Austin had considered, Harrisburg (to some extent was that way albeit half-assed), Hartford had a hint of using modular in one of their proposals. Sure some of these were pipe dreams and never came to fruition. I honestly think what Phoenix is doing is really smart. If you're successful and site works, you can build something more permenant in stages year over year. Or if it fails you easily tear it down and possibly aren't out as much $$. It would be interesting to see someone's analysis of costs of modular versus something more permanent like Pittsburgh. I did look around the net at some companies that do temporary stadium around the world for events like olympics and they can do some cool stuff.