Big Soccer thread has more details. The city of Collinsville, IL last night voted to annex some land, re-zone, and start the process to set the area up to be able to publicly finance infrastructure to facilitate a mixed use development which includes a soccer stadium. St. Louis Soccer United is pushing the plan to bring a MLS team to the area. The site is 400 acres near the interstate highways in Collinsville just east of St. Louis. St. Louis Soccer United is pushing for a stadium by 2010. Competition is heating up between St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Seattle to be in the next wave of expansion.
Re: St. Louis takes another step toward SSS and MLS Whoops. Meant to put [NDR] in the header. Maybe a mod can fix that.
F**K Seattle, they are losing their NBA franchise and have the idea that Quest will sell MLS as a league. BIG UP for St. Louis as they have always been a very strong soccer culture and Philly as well. Their people back their pro teams win or lose just cuz it says Philadelphia on the jersey. IIRC the last time our IronEagles played there back in the early 90's Old Veteran's stadium or wherever the match was played in their area, the crowd pulled in that day was like 44,000+. And that was pre MLS era IIRC. Philly and STL are no brainers as MLS grows IMHO.
What say the Dynamo fans to all 3 cities getting in? I've been trying to follow this closely & it looks like StL is basically in, with a stadium & owner. Philly is looking for state help to get a stadium done, I believe a vote is coming up soon. Seattle is looking at 3 ownership groups, with 2 looking to play at least short term in Qwest. BS'ers are saying that basically right now it's just a matte of negotiating a lease at Qwest to get a team there (I can't unsderstand how they'll make money, but that's their problem not mine). There is a small chance that all 3 could get it in gear for 2009/2010. How would you feel about a 17 team, single table setup? Do we have a preference on which cities do get in?
I'd like Seattle to get one but hope the Qwest stay is only temporary. That Sounders-Dallas game looked like ass with all the football markings. I've been very happy how long we've gone this season without the UH markings. We'll end up having only one home game with them! St Louis/Philly is a wash for me. I like the uniqueness of Philly already having an SG (Sons of Ben) before the team is even announced.
I almost agree. I hope St. Louis and Philly are the next two cities, but I hope Seattle doesn't get a team until the year they open up a new stadium; particularly never at Qwest. I also wanna see that $500 Million Las Vegas deal come through for the 18th team spot.
I would really prefer not to have an odd number of teams again. 14 next season, 16 in 2010 or so and then wait to expand to 18 makes more sense to me than 17 teams. Other than that, if all three have good ownership (preferably local) and a stadium plan I say let them in. I really do think that the SSS system has shown investors and communities that that MLS has a good business plan that will work. The recent sales of several teams in the $30 million dollar range, the profitability of teams like FCD not just the Galaxy, and the TV sponsorship deals are all signaling that the league is on good footing from a financial standpoint. Over-expansion will remain a worry so this should all be done carefully but things are looking good.
I think the only way that all 3 cities will get in will be if one of the existing teams pulls a San Jose and uproots itself to one of those cities. Kansas City would be the obvious candidate for relocating, in my opinion. Otherwise, I think that 4 expansion teams in the next 3 years or so (including the new San Jose team) stretches the league too thin.
Actually, that statement is mostly wrong at this point. The city council passed a vote that forces the team to stay until 2010. They're working on trying to set up a plan that would keep them there longer.
I'll tell you why I like the odd number. 1) There are just that many cities to have a team, so why deny a city like Philly or Seattle? MLS is still in a situation where they can't reject cities that build RCS and have ownership groups willing to pay the fee. 2) The expansion would happen in phases. SJ in 2008. The others two years later (2010). And I also think that they should do less for expansion teams anyway. The US can support that many teams (17 in 2010). 3) The single table, 16 home, 16 road would be better. 4) You can't move a team. KC shoud be getting a new stadium (seriously who can do well in a stadium like Arrowhead?), new rival, new hope. This is great, new cities to loathe.
I would like to warn you guys not to embrace this idea of rapid expansion. The NHL is a perfect example of this. You do not want to dilute your player pool and fan base by over expanding, and/or to quickly. 16 is enough for quite some time.
I don't know that MLS is in the same situation as the NHL. Pretty much, all of the quality hockey players in the world already resided in the NHL when they expanded. They couldn't go to Europe and get a lot of players with similar talent. MLS could easily just expand their senior/youth international allotments and get players that are just as talented as the players in MLS right now from Central or South America and they would be relatively cheap. Now, you could argue they shouldn't do that because the American player would be affected adversely but I don't think the quality of play would suffer. That said, I'd be OK with 16 for a while. MLS has taken great strides but I'd like to see some of the things that have developed in the last year stick for another year or two before expanding to 18 or 20 teams.
The Cities do not really matter as long as the financial and stadium situation is correct. IMHO having a balanced league as far as numbers of teams go would be preferable as it would at least ensure a (somewhat) balanced schedule. Having an odd number of teams in the league would lead to a repeat of this year which would really hurt the teams that have USMNT players, especially if it happened in a WC year. Initially it could dilute the player pool somewhat, but that may be offset if more players come in from other countries after seeing the impact that the DP rule has had to that point.
There's going to be a lot of expansion news and speculation over the next few months. Since we have many new folks to BS in this forum, here's a basic guide to where you can get info. Just please try to avoid sounding like a troll when you go into an expansion candidate city's forum (e.g., don't assume that you know what their stadium deal would look like, what surface they would play on, whether they'd have decent attendance, etc.). MLS Expansion Forum Main candidate markets: St. Louis Seattle Philadelphia You may also want to browse the front page of the MLS N&A forum, where people often post the latest news on expansion - click here for MLS N&A.
To add onto this great post, we still have the majority of teams in the red. There's no reason to above 14, or even 16 at the most (teams) until we have our league turnin a profit. Each team makin money and pullin the crowds. Forget the "Bex Effect" and lets look at the other games. Attendance has remained relatively levelish...with a slight increase and that needs work. Yeah, the Bex Effect looks nice for one game (NYRB) but I'd be more proud if we could get half of those people there for a NYRB v DC or somethin game. And, I gotta agree with *rey*
I can't say that I agree, and I can't find anything definitive, but I think that more and more teams are going black (into the black). Attendance is being maintained, it could be better, but it's been worse. More people are following MLS in terms of total butts in seats since we;ve added Goats, Lions (RSL) & TFC. The other thing to remember is that the next TV deal will be around the time that those new teams enter the market, so not only will they be dropping $35M to join, they should help push up the TV revenue by adding major TV sports markets for both ESPN & Telefutura.
The Goats have issues that (hopefully) their new GM will handle (rebranding, broader audience, etc). Their team is too good to be squandered in front of 100 people who decided not to watch the Mama Goats. RSL, under Kries, should improve and with a new stadium, could be a nice market. TFC...let's give them another year before we say anything. They turned heads with their attendance, but the team sucks and the fans are starting to respond... I hadn't thought about this. 2010 should be the turning point...either the league will take off...or it'll be a nice niche....we'll know by then. New TV contracts, probably at least 1 or 2 more teams by then, a lot of other teams should have stadiums by then (Hou, RSL, DCU?, Chivas?) or at least have them lined up and under way.