I only say that because it keeps getting reported in articles, although I am a guilty homer, I could see it happening and the team/city being the bashed by current fans.
After 2017, I'm skeptical that Sacramento will ever get into the league. I know they landed their whale, but maybe that's too little too late?
One of the recent news interviews from Sacramento reported that the ownership group is balking at the increased expansion fee ($200MM up from $150MM). A bad sign?
I believe it was ,ore along the lines that after paying the Expansion Fee and for the Stadium Construction they would have a difficult time (relatively speaking) of funding the team on a yearly basis. That's before taking training facilities and an Academy at the MLS level into account.
--------------- Could they make the argument if they had been selected earlier, the fee would be less? Did the fee jump after NASH & MIA and what about AUSTIN- they they pay a fee or did the new CBUS owners pay a fee? I hope MLS does not mess them over. A market with no NFL-MLS-NHL and no major NCAA team is very rare and I can't believe MLS would not want this market. Also, they went out and got their additional deep pockets owner, was that before or after the current expansion fee amount? I guess there was no agreement to pay a lower fee- or freeze the fee - while they went out and got another investor. Looks like they may have to get another if they are still short?
They could certainly make the argument, but MLS would point and laugh at them and give the expansion spot to one of several other ownership groups bidding for the spot. The expansion fee has increased every expansion cycle, with the latest round being $150 million. Miami is a bit different in that it was included in Beckham's contract with MLS that he could get an expansion team for $20 million or something like that, so Miami got a massive discount thanks to that. Austin didn't pay a fee. They are, technically, a relocation of an existing franchise. Columbus's new owners purchased a team share of MLS for $150 million, plus a few extra million to buy some physical property in Columbus from Precourt. If Sacramento doesn't get an MLS team, that's on Sacramento's owner. They lost out to Cincinnati and Nashville because Meg Whitman and her husband wanted a say in how the team was operated, but Nagle just wanted their money. If they lose out now over $50 million, again, that's on them. They are going to be spending a healthy amount more than that and MLS has already established that they will not accept set-up costs in lieu of the expansion fee. It's not a matter of MLS wanting the market or not. It's a matter of finding a good owner for the market. If Sacramento's owners are balking at an extra $50 million, MLS should be worried about the ownership group and whether they'll operate the team "properly". It was after Cincinnati and Nashville were announced. I'm not sure if it was before Sacramento found their new big money investor, but if he doesn't want to pony up $200 million, they'll have to find a new investor, or change their mind on the subject and pony up the cash.
C.K. Betz revived the STL bid in October of last year, Burkle joined Sacramento shortly after that. Expansion fee increased to 200 million at the April league meetings.
Since I started this but about Sacramento, I'm going to add that I am skeptical of almost all of the current expansion suitors. My basis for this is 2017. To me, that expansion process showed that there are a number of wanna be sports team owners who see MLS as a discount league. Sacramento is the poster city for this. If you read the posts here from that time frame, Sacramento was the team of destiny for MLS, why? Because whatever is magical about what Sacramento was/is doing. None of that has changed. What MLS showed was that they are not going to accept teams/potential expansion cities on the basis of magic. They need to pony up the expansion fee, and have a stadium plan. That's what Nashville, Cincinnati, and St. Louis did. At this point, I'm betting on Charlotte to get in. Tepper seems willing to write the check for the expansion fees, and BoA is due for renovations. The marginal cost to make BoA acceptable to MLS can't be that much. For Sacramento, I figure mls will take their calls for a little while longer, but would much rather have a check.
==================== To me now, I watching what Nash, Cincy and StL will end up being like on the field. If they had to spend the expansion fee, build a stadium and I assume, build up an academy etc, what will be left to spend on the team and will they be mediocre or compete? ATL obviously has spent. MIA a bit of an exception due to lower fee, but could end up building not one, but two soccer stadiums and I am pretty sure they will have a full academy set up as I see that could be the influence provided by Becks.
It cost Miami $500 million, it said earlier in the year that renovating would be cheaper than the "$300 million" you'd need for a new stadium (I assume referring to public funding). From the most recent reports around the situation, it seems like renovations will happen and a new stadium will be the goal. Miami's group is said to have real money and the team has made some good signings already with rumors of a big name signing from Europe to be the Vet (and draw) for the first season or so. Nashville just pulled of two solid first signings, have the Wilfs (Vikings owners) as their money guys, and have already started on their academy setup. Cincinnati could be following a plan similar to Minnesota with plans to have a solid roster built up by the time they move into their new home.
It's hard to predict for Nash and StL, but I'll say this about Cincinnati... The issues in Cincinnati do not seem to be a willingness of the ownership to spend, at least within the constraints imposed by MLS. Cincinnati's issues include poor decisions in terms of the players that they chose, poor use of funds to acquire those players, a toxic coach that they fired 5 games into the season, and unfortunate injuries to key players. The limited time between franchise award and first game was likely a contributing factor.
One of the STL ownership , Jim Kavanaugh, is the owner of St. Louis FC USL team, their academy, and youth programs. My understanding is that all this will remain, (ie. not promoting FC to MLS). Not sure how much more they'll add or spend, but at least their is some infrastructure already in place. Maybe SportBilly or I AM SPARTACUS can chime in with more / better info on STL.
Wow, were to even start, you are so off base, MLS moved to MLS 4 right as we were being considered. We already have the stadium site (ready to literally construct in 3 months notice) an acadamy outperforming many MLS academies. It was never considered a discount to join MLS, where the hell did you get that. MLS wanted more money investors, we got one. Our investor, Meg Whitman backed out at the last minute, so we found a new, better investor who is negotiating the final deal. What is up with this trash people like you spew, negotiations take time and MLS has been working with us to get to this point.
I'll answer your last point, since it seems the most relevant... Of course negotiations take time, as indicated by the fact that since the founding of Sacramento Republic in 2012, five teams have begun play, and another four are set to begin play.
Proof? How many academy grads are playing in MLS now, or other pro leagues at a higher level than USL, how many are playing for national teams?
Not hard to verify they have multiple players in multiple age groups regularly getting called up to youth national teams https://www.sacrepublicfc.com/academy-news . Just this year alone, two academy products were signed to Bundesliga teams: Quincy Butler to Hoffenheim, and Roberto Hategan to FC Nürnberg, and 7 (by my count) have been called up to US Youth national teams this year. More than the average MLS academy.
https://amp.sacbee.com/sports/mls/a...wdsnQqMQ6KE8XHfVnbsKA6T6JTBiz8hqrGbZIDeThyWC0 its here!!! its finally here!!!!!!!
I won't claim this as proof, but it comes from a source who is likely more knowledgeable than you or I. Note the comment, "For a USL club, that's pretty unheard of." Not to mention that the academy has only been around since 2015 (or '16). 1157379176460181505 is not a valid tweet id
I’m told by multiple sources with the franchise there has NOT been a deal reached between the @SacRepublicFC and the MLS @kcranews— Michelle Dapper (@KCRAdapper) September 6, 2019 Tap the brakes there. Until MLS announces that Garber and company are coming to town on such an such date for a special announcement.........the deal ain't done.
One source indicated youth territory rights ARE currently in the cross hairs, though another said that the year Sacramento begin play in MLS has also been a topic of discussion.Had heard MLS wants them to enter with St. Louis in 2022, though Sacramento had interest in 2021. https://t.co/OfpAqbCGYj— D.J. Switzer (@wrongsideofpond) September 10, 2019