In a theoretical vacuum, sure, this is true. And, certainly, the PLS only defines the floor, not the ceiling. But it does tell you where the floor above you is, and in the case of the first and second floor of the pyramid, it's all leased by the same landlord. If you're in USL D3, are worth $100 million, and are drawing 8K/game, I don't know that the USL would make you move up to D2, but I think your accountant and CFO would. NISA or someone else may come in at D3 with bigger budgets than USL, simply because they'd functionally be outside of the pyramid at first. If they're successful, they'll grow and naturally stratify economically.
I was answering questions regarding Ottawa status. It happens to be linked to CPL and this thread isn't the place to post details about the league unless I'm being asked a question. Hell, I even sincerely said that the new USL league was great for American Soccer and took an interest at understanding the whole pro/rel issue until I was told that it was reopening pandora box. You're not a mod so just skip my posts if it irritates you that much to read about it, or better, write to the USSF so they get rid of Canadian Clubs at ALL level if that helps you sleep at night
Remember the Virginia Calvary fiasco in NASL? DC United announced they're putting their affiliate team in Loudoun, Virginia.
Scuffed @zlebmada 2h2 hours ago Credit @theUSLshow for flagging this, Louisville City FC exec said this week that USL is going to eventually mandate that their clubs have academies USL expansion fee increases to $7mill https://www.soctakes.com/2018/07/25/brief-usl-expansion-fee-increases/
https://www.soctakes.com/2018/07/30/usl-franchise-fees-shepard-tone-or-progress/ in 20 years, MLS’ valuation of clubs has risen 7.5-fold. In half that time, the USL’s 47-fold increase has far outpaced even the top professional league in U.S. Soccer.
Another way of presenting that information is that MLS expansion fees have increased by $130m in the last 20 years and USL expansion fees have increased by $6.25m since 2009.
A one week longer calendar season for the USL in 2019 but staying at 34 games. That could mean slightly fewer mid-week games depending on how many teams actually start that first weekend. https://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/938887 Now we just need to hear how many teams will be in the USL versus the D3 league and whether or not the USL goes to three conferences.
Nipun tweeted that the rumor is 2 conference next year. With the announced expansions with loss's of Cinci, TFC2 and Ottawa (not announced yet, just strongly rumored) there would be 2 x 18 team conferences, set up perfect for a 34 game schedule. St. Louis would likely need to move back to the eastern conference.
I think two conferences means they think the number is going to drop below 36. Hmm. 33 teams now. Cincinnati, Ottawa, and TFCII leaving makes 30. There are 7 new teams starting in 2019: Austin, Birmingham, El Paso, New Mexico, Hartford, Memphis, and Loudoun United. Austin may be slightly questionable but they are still on the list. That makes 37. We may see some more defections to D3. I wouldn't start drawing new conferences quite yet. We shall see.
I fully expect to see some more of the MLS2 teams to make the drop down to USL D3. I think Red Bulls make sense to me among others.
Based on some things I heard this weekend around the All Star meetings, all of the MLS2 teams are dropping to USL D3. Either way, we'll know within a month or so.
Negative. There were tons of meetings (USSF, MLS, USL, PRO, etc., etc.) in ATL around the All Star games the past few days. Suffice to say this is just some inside info.
I guess it depends on how you define “MLS2” but Loudoun United which is the 2 team for DC United was just announced as a USL team. Hard to believe they would now drop to D3.
I do not believe it included the teams that are affiliated with MLS, but only the directly owned and operated ones. Personally, I agree with doing things that way. It's pretty clear some if not most of the MLS teams could care less about winning at that level. Which of course there is nothing wrong with that. Generating 1st team talent and keeping depth around is the primary concern to winning.
The move to D3 from D2 will revolve around a few things: venue requirement, location/travel, and salary. The D2 teams that will drop most likely will have smaller venues or do not want to accommodate a D2 venue requirement. The D2 teams that will stay (especially those that are MLS2/B teams) will see that travel would probably be much more accessible than what D3 has shaped up to be. Low budget teams (Rochester, as an example; Richmond, Pittsburgh) that may not want to keep the salary competition that D2 is/has shown will drop. It all makes sense. Teams like NYRB2, probably would rather stay D2 because of their competitive ability. They probably want to keep their players playing as high competition as possible if they want to legitimately give them a shot for NYRB. The 2/B teams that have little-to-no player movement to their MLS side would make more sense going D3.
Despite the name, Loudoun United is directly owned and operated by DC United. They are as much a MLS2 team as NYRBII or LAGII.
Austin is definitely a go next yr. Announced team name, colors, crest and a few signed players today.
Ah. I prefer that and wish more teams did it that way. You can still own and run the team but try to give it a different identity for the fans that may not be able to afford MLS on a regular basis. But hey I'm no marketing expert. Just think the whole ATL2, LAGII is quite lame from a branding point of view.
Agreed. Would like to see Tacoma Sounders instead of Sounders 2, for instance. I like SKC has done with Swope Park. Would like to see more teams try this. Would like to see, for instance, Los Dos or an LAFC USL team playing in the IE and keeping a tie in to the parent club besides just 2.
Orange County is associated with LAFC. I read somewhere that OC has rights to all of the IE as well as the LA basin. The Galaxy had to pay a premium to OC to get Los Dos in.
Question: Not sure where to ask this and I didn't want to start a new thread so I thought it belonged here..... Now that the USL is going through expansion with newer franchises in different parts of the country etc, wouldn't it behoove most clubs that have an affiliation with MLS (or MLS 2 teams) to play in a different venues other than where the parent franchise are located? Just curious as it seems some of the MLS 2 club attendances look pretty sparse and probably aren't all that profitable. I know the Quakes are using Reno which is 4 hours away and they are drawing ok but I don't think they would do too well if they were in the Bay Area.