News: USL/NASL discussion thread (continued)

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

When quoting Kartik, you need to remember that many of his posts are largely opinion. As it is with the one you referred to. This one in particular even cues you in on it being an opinion piece in its title: "Thoughts on American TV Ratings..."

Doesn't say that it's going to stop doing USL1. Or that it wouldn't air the TOA league if it happens.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

& getting nowhere.........LOL!

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Isn't USL paying FSC to air its games? If that is the case, I don't see whyn FSC would stop carrying the games.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

I believe you're correct on both counts.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

(from the previous thread)


if that's true that might actually give a new TOA league a bit of an edge in the fact they might not have to pay for some of their tv coverage at the start. Though i'm not sure how many homes Goltv is in..

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

A simple reason would be is if they could get more money from advertisements from showing either tape delayed games or re-airing games from leagues from Europe or elsewhere..

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

IIRC, while USL buys the air time ( I believe it is $10,000) they sell a certain part the ad time that is surrounding the match. While I dont know what that equates to I'm sure it helps off set the cost.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Check out the article on Inside Minnesota Soccer concerning the financial future of the Minnesota Thunder. Does not sound good!

Makes you wonder with the lack of info on the TOA, if things aren't coming apart at the seams.

I keep checking out St. Louis Soccer United website for info and nothing has been updated in months.

Come on Jeff Cooper, give us an update!

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Inside MN Soccer link.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Yikes. So Minnesota's players and staff haven't been paid for nine weeks, haven't paid their 2009 USL bills and the team hasn't paid their facility use fees in a year? If the Minnesota ownership doesn't get an infusion of cash quick they're not going to be taking part in any league, the TOA or the USL.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

We'd heard plenty of rumors about Minnesota's problems, but this really looks bad. It's possible that the 'big deal' will come through but if not, here's the TOA rundown:

Tampa Bay - was at USL1 meeting, needs to create team
Minnesota - major financial issues
Miami - big money owner, unable to sell the game in Miami
Carolina - ok
Atlanta - drew poorly, needs to restart team
St. Louis - needs to create team
Montreal - has been wishy-washy about where they'll be next season
Vancouver - has been wishy-washy about where they'll be next season, but have gone on record as being involved in presenting the league papers to the USSF.

So, looking at this pessimistically, there's only one solid team for a TOA league - Carolina.

Even if you take a more optimistic view, with Vancouver going away in '11, Montreal and Carolina are the only two teams with a solid track record. For all the shots having been taken at the USL1 over this whole struggle, the TOA doesn't really look any more viable.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Has Carolina minority owner Bob Young been quoted about the TOA issue during this process? He was looking to get a team in the USL for Hamilton, ON contingent on a new stadium being built IF the southern Ontario region gets to host the 2015 Pan Am Games, which apparently they have just been awarded. With Edmonton and Ottawa both potentially going USL and Vancouver and Montreal going TOA, then MLS, then replacing themselves on a lower level with teams in their respective provinces I wonder what this debacle does to his plans.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

*sigh*

For comparison, here's the USL1 as it currently stands:

Active teams
Austin - 1 year old franchise
Charleston - solid franchise, but there were rumors that they are interested in dropping down to USL2 (i.e. money woes)
Cleveland - new owner after a disastrous first year in USL1, TBD
NYC - will be a first year franchise, getting off to a slow start according to some
Portland - gone in 11 months
Puerto Rico - in good shape as far as I know
Rochester - former flagship now fading, coming off ownership turmoil, did they ever get enough money to finish their stadium?
Tampa - may or may not choose to play in USL
All the other USL1 teams? - most likely gone

Possibilities
Atlanta - sounds like there isn't an Atlanta team after all (just more posturing from NuRock?)
Baltimore - TBD
Birmingham - see Atlanta
Edmonton - TBD
Michigan - TBD
Ottawa - TBD (2013?)

So that's a lot of question marks and only 7 or 8 teams that will actually be playing next year unless some of these expansion teams actually come through and assuming none of the existing teams leave or go bankrupt/drop down.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Sigh

this is what happens when people read a blog and think that it is factual news. One person mentioned it in passing on his blog and people take it as gospel. I believe the guy probably meant Cleveland.

Charleston is not dropping down. They have broke even or made a profit over the last couple years.

They will be playing in USL 1 next season.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Yep, that pretty much covers it. Except for Mikey's correction.

So, we have three solid franchises in the USL1 (Rochester, Charleston and Puerto Rico) and two in the TOA (Carolina and Montreal). All the rest are young, shaky, or both. Or guaranteed moving to MLS in a year.

Which is why I hate the idea of the split so much. One league with five solid teams is, I think, far more stable and easier to market than two smaller leagues with a couple solid teams each.

Oh, and no reason to sigh. I wasn't saying the TOA was *less* viable. Just that a lot of shots have been pointed at the USL1, and it seems to me that the reality is that the two look just about equally bad. Lots of question marks all around.

And, as to Atlanta and Birmingham, all that's ever been said is that NuRock has the option. They're just not exercising it yet. No reason to get pissy about it.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

TOA league wants to play in winter and have the champion automatically qualify for CCL.

http://www.indyweekblogs.com/sports...ext-years-friendlies-may-include-epl-side/#at

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Hey look, another worthless contribution from WhiteStar Warriors.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

I am a neutral, so I get annoyed at having to regularly balance out the constant anti-TOA posts from USL-backers.

You made a pretty critical and negative post about the TOA and then compared it to the USL without mentioning any of the USL's problems.

Don't pretend to be objective in your posts when you aren't.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

That's what Wellman said and he's the spokesperson of the TOA.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

it was a week old and already posted in the previous thread.

Just stay on topic, don't worry about the winter schedule till we need to.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

So it is just brushed off, that's a red flag already for TOA. Really?? winter schedule and automatic qualification for CCL??? Have you heard of a second division team qualifying for Champions League

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

Not a concern till we actually hear from USSF. When we finally have a new league, and they give us some information - then its time to discuss. Plus none of us have any money invested and whatever we say probably won't have much influence on the new league.

 

Re: USL/TOA discussion thread (continued)

fyp