Let the west coast speculation begin...

Discussion in 'MLS: Expansion' started by metros11, Sep 7, 2007.

  1. metros11

    metros11 Member

    Sep 11, 1999
    Highlands of NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://www.delcotimes.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily;jsessionid=K8LDGhXM8XR57jzTwmnQ670n11PtTYRXm34

    '“In order for this team to play in 2010 in a brand new soccer stadium, our deal with ownership and the public needs to be finalized by early December at the latest,” said Garber.

    After that, he said, Philadelphia falls from the top of the list for potential sites on the East Coast to host a franchise and compliment the upcoming West Coast addition of the league’s as-yet unnamed 15th team, expected to begin play in 2009.'

    How we all love reading into things. Me thinks that Sounders fan dude might be right, QWEST will see MLS.
     
  2. Z010 Union

    Z010 Union Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 28, 2002
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Seattle.

    Think Roth, Hanauer, plus there are some huge industries there that could kick in to have pre-paid the expansion fee.
     
  3. Hed7181

    Hed7181 Member

    Jul 1, 2003
    VA Beach, VA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    where does this put St. Louis though?

    Next year will have 14 teams, with the addition of San Jose.

    1 in Seattle and 1 in Philly = 16

    so what about St. Louis?
     
  4. metros11

    metros11 Member

    Sep 11, 1999
    Highlands of NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was thinking that too. And then I though about it again, if Toronto can come in and the league can play with 13 teams, why wouldn't they allow St Louis in and have 17 teams?!? The schedule would be uneven, but it would allow teams to play each other twice for a total of 32 games. Makes sense to me.
     
  5. mitchs3

    mitchs3 Member

    Jan 17, 2007
    STL
    Good question. These boards have been humming for a long time now that surely MLS, if faced with multiple large cities with solid ownership groups ready to pay an expansion fee and (in 2 out of 3 cases) with a plan in place to build an SSS, couldn't turn them down, could they? I guess we'll find out.

    Unless I misread it, the line about the 'as yet unnamed West Coast 15th team' was just the story author speaking, not a quote from Garber or any MLS official. There sure seems to be actual fire, not just smoke, in the Seattle activities, the stadium issue notwithstanding (yes, we know Sounderfan/Man, Qwest is an SSS; we get it :)), but nothing is sure there yet either.

    I can't fathom that they would turn down STL if the Collinsville stadium is passed, but bigger leagues than MLS have certainly perfected the art of playing expansion candidates off each other and leaving the losing bids ticked off in their wake (see, the St. Louis Stallions, who at the last minute wound up becoming the Jacksonville Jaguars (home of covered upper deck seats they can't sell), leaving an empty stadium in St. Louis just waiting for the Rams, leaving Los Angeles without an NFL team -- think the NFL might like a do over on that one?). I don't think any of the three cities want a relocated Wizards team over an expansion team (STL would enjoy the rivalry with KC), even if they'd be better on the field at first, but maybe the league is whispering in their ears that they're losing patience in KC (another stab a stadium plan floated this week; TBD if this one goes any further than the others) and that that can be plan B for whichever of the three doesn't get expansion teams.

    I hope they just announce all three as expansion teams, but again, I guess we'll see.
     
  6. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    I'll go ahead and make this public.

    A source who works for a national ticketing agency (initials TM) says that company received an order to create an "MLS season schedule and season ticket deposit database" for Seattle and Qwest Field, in early August (2007).

    Such orders are not free, and some Seattle group has paid to have this created.
     
  7. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    And more hot rumors based on 'leaks' from Sounders staff...

    1. First&Goal (www.stadium.org) has stated in writing their commitment to MLS in Seattle and that they would give the MLS franchise the same billing as the Seahawks (ie: Banners, Signage, Images, etc.).

    2. MLS controls when the Seattle announcement will be made, but...

    3. It WILL happen sometime this Fall.


    (They capitalized "WILL," not me).
     
  8. tfoz

    tfoz Member

    Jun 3, 2005
    So we have a 3 horse race for 2 spots...... When are the official council meetings to decide about stadiums etc going to happen. I know the st louis one is monday, when are the others? Who will be first in, best dressed?
     
  9. Calexico77

    Calexico77 Member

    Sep 19, 2003
    Mid-City LA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why only 2 spots? Seriously? Does anyone really think that they won't open up the books for Philly once their stadium is approved?

    "But we'll have 17th teams! How will we manage that schedule"??

    [​IMG]
     
  10. PopsKrock

    PopsKrock New Member

    Jul 18, 2007
    Belleville
    Club:
    AC St. Louis
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Weren't the expansion spots suppossed to start in '09? Maybe Seattle starts next year and then 3 more teams by '10. Philly and StL in '09 and who knows else in '10.
     
  11. The 92nd Fish

    The 92nd Fish Member

    Jan 16, 2007
    London, England
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    MLS would have to absolutely barking mad to reject one of the three, it'll just take all three and absorb the talent dilution for the next few years, it's a necessary evil for the furthering of the league, and adding those three markets will mean a much better national spread. Garber has shown he's not adverse to changing his mind on expansion, with the 16 by 2010 then a pause being changed to 16 by 2010 and then 18 by 2012 before the pause, only very recently.

    Then comes '12 with Las Vegas and Atlanta, and you have a ridiculously healthy league for soccer in the United States, especially coming off the '10 WC.
     
  12. Earthshaker

    Earthshaker BigSoccer Supporter

    Sep 12, 2005
    The hills above town
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    San Jose is the expansion team for 2008.
    My guess is that Seattle will be chosen for 2009.
    Philly and St. Louis would not start play until their stadiums are completed, which will be 2010 at the earliest.

    San Jose will balance the league for 2008, but, if Seattle comes on board in 2009 the league will end up unbalanced for that year. If both St. Louis and Philly enter in 2010 the league would be unbalanced for that year and any subsequent years until an 18th team is added. I would like to see Portland or Vancouver be the 18th team.
     
  13. scheck

    scheck Member

    Mar 13, 2007
    Denver
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Why not just go single table then? Does it make sense to have more conference games when you can play an even schedule and have a perfectly good season?
     
  14. hipityhop

    hipityhop Member

    New Mexico United
    United States
    Jan 10, 1999
    Mission TX
    Club:
    SønderjyskE
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nahh, no single table, how about 15 teams with 3 conferences, West Central and East, like they've had in the past with 12 teams?
     
  15. demunb

    demunb Member

    Feb 23, 2007
    Crystal City, MO
    Club:
    St. Louis Lions
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    with adding either 2 or 3 new teams, the time for single table has come. I think we'll still keep an American Style Playoff system, but a true champion from the top of the single table will become more important. Then you can have any number of teams (odd or even) and keep the home/away schedule the same.
     
  16. Sachsen

    Sachsen Member+

    Aug 8, 2003
    Broken Arrow, Okla.
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Collinsville votes on the St. Louis stadium proposal in two days. If it's approved, Garber could approve a franchise immediately. It would be difficult, but the stadium could be built and finished in time for the start of the 2009 season. They've got 18 months.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see Seattle and St. Louis in 2009 and Philly in 2010.
     
  17. Sachsen

    Sachsen Member+

    Aug 8, 2003
    Broken Arrow, Okla.
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I hate the idea of three conferences. Either leave it at two or go single table.
     
  18. scheck

    scheck Member

    Mar 13, 2007
    Denver
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But why do we need conferences when everyone can play each other home and away and fill a complete schedule?
     
  19. sirfallsalot_2000

    Apr 18, 2006
    St. Louis, MO
    Club:
    AC St. Louis
    You could keep the east/west format for 17 teams and play a home and away with everyone, it would work great. The reason to keep the conferences would be for the playoffs still.

    I think the greater challenge of 17 teams is the scheduling. Giving a bye week would be fine, but playing Thursday - Sunday is hard. I think this is what makes 17 teams unattractive. They should still do it, there is no reason to leave St. Louis or Philly heartbroken.
     
  20. metros11

    metros11 Member

    Sep 11, 1999
    Highlands of NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So lets break this down by year:

    2008 - 14 teams, 2 conferences, 3 games against teams in same conference, 2 games against teams in other conference, for a total of 32 games for each team.

    2009 - Assume that Seattle is in, now we have 15 teams. With that many teams I am sure that MLS would go with 3 conferences as they've done before. So you would have the teams play 3 times against conference opponents, and twice against all others, for a total of 32 games.

    2010 - 16 teams. If either Philly or St Louis are in, then you have 16 teams. I would guess MLS would go back to two conferences again but play 2 games against each opponent for a total of 30. Now, what if both cities make it in, you would have 17. Would it be 2 or 3 conferences?
     
  21. 400lb Gorilla

    400lb Gorilla Member

    Sep 1, 2006
    Missouri
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    3 confrences doesn't make sense with 17 teams, one conference would have one less team than the other two. It is more likely they would go single table with 32 games, or stay with two conferences like they did this year.
     
  22. Gooner_for_Life

    Oct 26, 2005
    Portland, OR
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If all of you are so worried about odd numbers what about

    2009 adding 2 of Shittle/Philly/St Louis.

    2010 the remaining team that missed out in 09 and another new team.

    2010 is still a long ways away. Who knows what will happen between then and even next year. A team could make an announcement sometime in 08, lets say all star weekend, and have a suitable venue built and ready to go by the 2010 season.

    That would boost the league to 18 teams. The only other questions are the age old ones. Too rapid of expansion? Dilution of the player pool? Blah blah blah
     
  23. Taoism

    Taoism Member

    Apr 13, 2007
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Why? Why not simply take the top X teams (6, 8, whatever). What difference would conferences make except to possibly allow a team with a worse record into the playoffs based on a guaranteed spot?

    Cheers!
     
  24. sirfallsalot_2000

    Apr 18, 2006
    St. Louis, MO
    Club:
    AC St. Louis
    I should have explained further. For our American sports market, having the divisions and playoffs would make sense as it would follow all the other major sports. I don't know how the county as a whole would take a single table. I think we should just so a single table and let the country adjust.
     
  25. bouncingsoul44

    bouncingsoul44 New Member

    Jun 10, 2007
    Philadelphia, PA
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have to agree. The fact of the matter is, I think we should be more worried about getting the fans of international football, but not MLS. We should also reach out to the mainstream market, but that's going to be an uphill battle, especially with the numbers of "macho" gridiron football fans (not saying anyone who watches the sport is like that, definately not the case, but I know a fair share of them who are like this) that will never support the sport. We should really go for the existing football fans (meaning also many immigrants who support their teams from their original countries) as well as the younger generation.
     

Share This Page