Right. Now you are going to tell me that there is a prettier actress than Fairuza Balk. You will be wrong about that as well. Tasha is a knock out. I would handle her heart as if it was mine. That is one of her script tattoos, by the way. I grant Mitts one thing over Tasha. Mitts has a mature game. A workwomanlike one, but she has developed. Tasha has not (nor have he tattoos; she will not stop at nine). With the retirment of DF, however, Kai becomes a very important part of the National Team. A 5'8" target striker who regularly brings the ball down against taller players, Tasha can put the ball on goal quickly. She also has the speed to blow past defenders with the ball at her feet. If she does develop her game, she will be lethal, and even hotter. Tasha will not play for Dallas, nor DC; I have my doubts whether she will join the league at all. Mitts certainly will, and she will instantly be one of the best palyers. Still, I will never understand what people see in her. Dead but dreaming (of Tasha), Scipio Diabolus, vox fatum. http://www.contracafe.com http://www.cato.org
As for me, my point was that the WNBA is struggling to make it even with the mightly NBA'S support. WUSA 1 didn't make it. Another women's pro basketball league started when the WNBA started and it failed. That was my point. Not a good track record. Therefore, MLS involvement is a valid concern to bring up. Your explanation of 'how' involved was 'by itself' a good reply.
6,000 screaming 8 year old girls at Pizza Hut Park for the women's team means that 10 years later there are several thousand extra (18-21 year old)girls at FC Dallas games. Is that terrible?
Okaaaaaaay, but the theme of your post was NOT WUSA's chances of survival, it was MLS's involvement. If you are arguing that WUSA 2 (electric boogaloo) won't make it past year 4, then you won't get much of an argument from me. But that' wasn't your point. I really don't see how, unless you are completely confused as to how they are actually involved. Hence my post, attempting to clear the air....the same air that's been cleared in an identical fashion about 3,000 times. The same air that was cleared quite succinctly in just about every article I've seen regarding this. Wow, I'm so glad you approve.
That's worthy of a Robot Greggo "good point" in my book. Although I question the likelihood of 6,000 attendees in 2007 resulting in anything other than a handful of attendees 10 years later.
MLS involvement with a business enterprise that may very well fail (example: WNBA not succeeding even with NBA support) was my point. This was very obvious. Any business dealing with a failed enterprise can be very costly. WUSA lost millions from what I understand. Somebody didn't get paid for their services or their support. For example, maybe stadium rent didn't get fully paid.
Okay, on that final point you may have something....and may needs to be emphasized. If they do indeed fail and don't pay their rent to MLS clubs who control an SSS, that would be somewhat damaging financially. I would counter that the costs of operating an SSS are static and any additional rental revenue is a plus....so this wouldn't actually represent a loss to any MLS club. I suppose you could say the MLS club would be budgeting against that revenue and they could find themselves in a tight position when it doesn't come through. But that would be their fault for doing so, and it most certainly wouldn't cause any significant long term financial problems. As for the rest of their support.....sharing marketing and operational support costs next to nothing and puts no strain on the MLS clubs. You are searching for the needle of negative in the haystack of benign information.
You know what will be sad? If the Dallas Womens Team wins the league title before there is ever a World Series played at Ameriquest Field. I wonder what the chances of that happening are?
Well we know Hicks' newest team Liverpool has a good chance to win more in one year than his Rangers have in 30 years.