Well of course. You'll get more money out of someone who has a pimp walk than someone who has a skank ho walk.
A gait, singular, is a particular way of moving on foot. Gaits are plural. Gaits are particular ways of moving on foot. Subject verb agreement would be "Do the ways people walk generate money now?" So, yeah. You want to throw down on the English language, bring it on. You did it not once, but three times. So ******** off.
There was a listing posted recently in the Expansion forum about the viability of different markets in different sports. I remember it had a long list of markets that it felt could support MLS. Can we get that reposted, please?
This report came out about a year and a half ago and my guess is that this is what you are thinking about: http://www.portfolio.com/industry-n...w-cities-rank-for-potential-sports-expansion/ Here were the reports suggestions for MLS expansion: http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2009/12/stadium-seating I wasn't very impressed because the authors of this report seem to think that MLS aspires to be the equivalent of the Arena Football League. Dayton? Akron? Louisville? Baton Rouge? Omaha? Calgary? None of those cities and none of the cities noticed on the interactive map are going to be serious candidates for MLS expansion -- with the exception of Sacramento, Orlando, Austin, San Antonio, and Miami. (Montreal, of course, is in for 2012).
There was a second report that has a chart of every market and their capacity to support MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL and MLS. Edit: I found it, in a link on the interactive map: http://www.portfolio.com/resources/SportsChart.pdf
I get I made a f'n mistake in the word I used. How is your criticism constructive in anyway to the conversation. Thanks for thoughtful post.
What a treasure of knowledge. The next time I have questions with grammar, spelling or word usage, I will check into this Big Soccer forum first.
Top MA's w/o a team (excluding SF, Cincinatti and Balt as too close to current MLS cities), with comments. 100% agree with an earlier poster that ownership/facility are the most important things as long as it is a viable community - and anything over 1m can be as we've seen with RSL. Miami - 5.5 - huge market, but past history, sports history not strong Atlanta - 5.4 - see above but without the past history Detroit - 4.4 - huge market, strong soccer community, struggling city (corporate sponsorship...) Phoenix - 4.3 - heat? (Riverside - 4.1) - really have a large enough central area? Minneapolis - 3.2 - decent size, history San Diego - 3 - see Miami St. Louis - 2.8 - all they really need is an ownership group. Tampa Bay - 2.7 - see Miami Pittsburgh - 2.3 - see Detroit Sacramento - 2.1 - very interesting, as was pointed out at the beginning of this thread Cleveland - 2 - see Detroit Orlando - 2 - same as Sac. San Antonio - 2 - same as Sac. Las Vegas - 1.9 - first professional team in Sin City? Color me skeptical Charlotte - 1.7 - not a great size market, but good soccer history (youth, college level) - is that good enough? Indianapolis - 1.7 - similar to Sac. Austin - 1.7 - similar to Sac - but UT is the big gorilla in that city - can it be overcome? (Virginia Beach - 1.6) - see Riversize Providence - 1.6 - size plus Detroit issues Nashville - 1.5 - ok size, limited history, but only NFL in there. Milwaukee - 1.5 - see Providence Jacksonville - 1.3 - see Indy/Miami Memphis - 1.3 - same as Sac. Louisville - 1.2 - see Riverside Richmond - 1.2 - see Riverside Oklahoma City - 1.2 - size, otherwise same as Sac. Hartford - 1.1 - see Providence New Orleans - 1.1 - see Indy. Birmingham - 1.1 - see Riverside Raleigh - 1.1 - see Charlotte Buffalo - 1.1 - see Jacksonville Rochester - 1.1 - small size, good history 13 MAs at or over 2m. My answer to this question? A small handful - Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, St. Louis, Phoenix, Detroit. I think for national market purposes, though, the league will have to look at two of the following: Miami, Charlotte/Raleigh, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Orlando, possibly Jacksonville.
Very interesting. Do you think that the ability of a city's businesses to support a team is also a factor?
So in 42 cities all you need is a guy/gal with 250+ Million to pay fee, build stadium and allow loses to get an MLS team.
These teams can work They all have history: Atlanta: Atlanta Apollos (1968–1973, as Atlanta Chiefs in 1968-1972) (Georgia) Atlanta Chiefs (1978–1981, Atlanta Silverbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Silverbacks Detroit: Detroit Cougars (1968) (Michigan) Queens NY: New York Generals (1968) (New York) New York Cosmos (1971–1984, as Cosmos in 1977-1978) (New York) Rochester: Rochester Lancers (1970–1980) Rochester Rhinos: USL 1996-2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Rhinos San Diego: San Diego Toros (1968) (California) San Diego Sockers (1974–1984) San Diego Jaws in 1976, Tampa Bay: Tampa Bay Rowdies (1975–1984) (Florida) Tampa Bay Mutiny: 1996–2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Mutiny Canada: Ottawa - 2hrs from Montreal & 4 Hrs from Toronto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Soccer_Stadium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Pioneers Hamilton - 45 min from Toronto (TFC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton,_Ontario http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_American_Stadium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Steelers_(CSL) Edmonton - 8 - 9 hrs to Vancouver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Stadium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Edmonton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Brickmen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Aviators
You mean a "history of failure"? Right? Because they all, you know, failed. On what basis are you saying they could "work"? The San Jose Clash (96-99) had higher attendance than the rebranded San Jose Earthquakes (00-05) did despite the fact that the Earthquakes won two titles while the Clash were arguably the worst team in the early years of the league. It's more about developing and executing a viable business plan than about the branding of the team.
the Detroit Express lasted thrice as long as the Cougars in the NASL, had some phenomenal players and couldn't even make the list.
What is everyone's love affair with the NASL? Not ONE team from the NASL lasted as long as any of the Original Ten (other than Tampa Bay - RIP)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League Apologies if that was sarcasm and it flew over my head.....
Will take Toronto as an example: Toronto City - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_City Toronto Falcons (Folded) -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Falcons Toronto Metros - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Metros_Croatia Toronto Metros-Croatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Metros_Croatia Toronto Blizzard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Metros_Croatia Toronto Lynx -(Major Flop)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Lynx Toronto FC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorontoFC History will tell you just because one organization in the city did not work, who said others wouldn't ex Toronto Lynx major flop TFC well we all know how successfull TFC has been at the Box Office go figure all we need now is a winning team.
All that proves is that there are legit soccer fans in the US and Canada and the A-League/USLI/NASL can't put a product on the field that really gives an indicator whether it will be successful.
Bad example using the Quakes. The Clash like all MLS teams had ridiculously high attendance the first year that dropped off in subsequent seasons. The rebranding had nothing to do with that drop just as not rebranding didn't effect several other teams in the league.
How important do you think having a pro soccer history really is? Just because soccer once was able to survive for a few years in a city doesn't seem as good a baramoter for success as having a large youth soccer culture or support for rare National team games, or does it? Do you think there are as many old Atlanta Chiefs fans sitting around waiting for pro soccer to return as there are younger people who are inspired by the National team and the big exhibition matches in town and want to see soccer regularly?
And yet the 97-99 (post-inaugural) season attendance with a horrible non-playoff team still outstripped the 00-05 double MLS Cup winning golden boy Landon Donovan leading team. It's a great example. 96-99 - non-traditional name/uniforms, awful team - decent attendance 00-05 - historic traditional name/normal uniforms, star player, championship team - bad attendance I'm just saying that the name doesn't really mean that much.
It is closer to $100-120m. $50m for the stadium, $40m for the expansion fee and enough money to absorb the early losses/pay up front for the marketing that is needed to be successful. Not that that makes it significantly easier - just clarifying.
There was a magazine article posted somewhere on Big Soccer ranking expansion cities for North America, including MLS. It took into account factors like population, disposable income, no. of other sports teams, etc. Anyone remember the link? Much obliged
I haven't had time to sit and read this whole thread [I've read the first few pages and the last few as well]. I want to start by saying I'm from San Antonio and I may sound a little biased but I'm just gonna spit out some points about San Antonio you may not know. Right now we have a support group called the Crocketteers. We have about 300 paid members but if you want to be a Crocketteer, you pretty much can be as long as you're willing to support the team. Well, the funny thing is, we had 300 WITHOUT a team. Recently, the San Antonio Scorpions [an NASL team which may NOT even play ball in 2012] have popped up. We've had hundreds of supporters at their press conferences during the work day. The Spurs organization [they've brought the SA Rampage, a minor league hockey team to San Antonio] has claims to a USL team if they please. They're moving to try to get the USL team to play at about a 20,000 seat high school football stadium. The Crocketteers have had about a hundred show up to a school board meeting to make their voice heard. If the Sons of Ben [who were a large part in bringing the Union to Philly] can do it, then so can we. We're the largest soccer support group without a team playing on the pitch at the moment. Imagine when a team actually gets on the pitch. I believe San Antonio deserves a team more then Miami [who had a team in the past and blew it], the Cosmos [for two reasons. 1- Red Bulls can't support a team that well, why will a 2nd NY team be any different 2- why bring back the team that was a large part in the downfall of the NASL back in the day], Sacramento and San Diego[mainly because California has 3 teams now and Chivas and LA play at the same stadium. If anything move Chivas somewhere else and then I'll be ok with another team. Chivas moving to Sacramento or San Diego would be better in my opinion]. This is just my opinion. Knock it if you want but I'm just speaking my mind. I'm sure people can find reasons why San Antonio doesn't deserve a team but seeing the passion and enthusiasm here in town, I believe they deserve a team.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VkNBcOIGMk"]YouTube - Deserve[/ame] If someone from San Antonio wants to (and has the ability to) pay the +/- $50 million franchise fee and build a stadium in which the team controles the schedule and revenues, San Antonio will have a team. I agree, it's one of several markets in which MLS would thrive. Good luck.
I think SA doesn't deserve a team mainly because I hate the Spurs. Seriously though, that market is definitely underserved when it comes to sports entertainment. I mean if friggin "Eh, hoser Tim Horton's"-style football can average almost 16k people, surely an MLS team could succeed.