I'm not understanding it either. They'd have to sell one of the teams if the end up with 2 playing in the same league correct?
Someone suggested that a move to NASL isn't a bad thing if they keep the level of attendance ... I'm asking the question because I want to know "why would you if you're just adding costs and not increasing revenue via attendance?". Maybe sponsorships/corporate money start rolling in due to being in a professional league ... I don't know.
Club 9 is helping the clubs find investors, so more akin to your broker comparison than the Anschutz one.
You are increasing revenue by moving from NPSL to NISA or NASL because you have more home games and can charge more for tickets. You are also going to be more appealing to sponsors. Now you are also increasing expenses at a greater scale than the revenue increase very likely, so you are reducing your margins. This is part of why you may need an outside investor to help underwrite it, more so in NASL than NISA. (That and the USSF requires it.) It's not for everyone, but in DCFC's case they have a rabid fan base that has been growing at a nicely compounding rate since inception. They are getting closer to selling out their stadium, with no viable stadium option for the next step, so charging more and having more dates makes sense. Their supporters group is excited for a pro team, and the owners appear to be more interested in stewarding the project to the next level for the community than maxing out profits from it on an individual basis. DCFC came out of a community soccer project and the owners retain that spirit about it.
And more road games. Detroit City left the state of Michigan exactly twice this season. That ain't happening in the NASL.
Someone should ask Andy David how the Torrent handled the travel to MI for nearly every away game. It didn't appear to bankrupt them.
Also remember they pay their players (granted not a lot) and don't collect gate money or concessions only season tickets and merch.
Oh, jeez. Wisconsin to Michigan. Yes, completely the same as Detroit to Edmonton, San Francisco, Miami, Jacksonville, New York, San Diego, Orange County and other ports of call. If you can't see that Detroit, by its own admission, only made a profit because of having all those home playoff games (fueled by unpaid players), and how different their expense line would be by adding flights and hotel and ground transportation for twice as many road games plus player wages plus a more robust front office as required by USSF standards plus payroll taxes plus workers compensation, even WITH a handful of more home games, we can't have a conversation.
I light of the NASL sanctioning announcement from the USSF. I wonder if the new NASL expansion clubs in San Diego and Orange County will opted out of the NASL and into the NISA instead.
It'll be up to their ownership groups I'd imagine. They are the ones who have to do the opting out. And if they do they could technically try to jump to any league. USL likely isn't an option for OC given USL already having an OC team. But I can't imagine the San Diego group and USL won't take a second look at each other after they took a first look in the run up to the SD group going to NASL. And rightly so, the SD team needs to be D2 I'd think if they hope to have a shot.
Here's the thing: assuming you have a choice (and, as mentioned above, Orange County may very well not have one), why would you take a flier on a league that doesn't actually currently exists versus the one that has basically won the war? The NISA came about because of a void in the D3 space, with promises of pro/rel with a D2 league that may no longer exist. Depending on how the NASL chooses to play it, there may no longer be such a void, and some of their clubs are at least strong enough to handle a reclassification. More interesting to me is what Detroit chooses to do now. They may find - as Charleston did - that a safe place is a good place for now, as they have no real imperative to move up one or two levels.
Obviously having everyone stick around would be the most fun. pic.twitter.com/SEFODSRBwn— Chris Kivlehan (@kivlehan) September 6, 2017 The combined NISA and NASL with possible additions of Detroit and NOLA looks like a decent league. Arizona in the NISA always looked lonely out west but if you combine it with the California clubs it kinda makes sense. When you add in the other LOI Wilt has mentioned it could be the start of something great. Use a combined league to strengthen the clubs and 2-3 years down we might see promotion to a new D2 with clubs that meet the standards without waivers.
Given how the D2 standards have been a noose around the NASL neck, perhaps accepting a move to D3, throwing their lot in with NISA and then reestablishing themselves as D2 at a later date might be for the best.
It's a cute pipe dream map, but it ignores reality. North Carolina is in advanced talks to USL, so they're gone. SF Deltas won't survive the calendar year so they're gone. Edmonton is very likely gone to CPL.
USL D3 smells blood. Running a twitter campaign including an AMA today. https://twitter.com/USL_D3 Not very informative but says 3 regional conferences with 30-40 teams is the goal
Don't blame them. NASL dies, and they find a way to kill NISA before it gets off the ground and USL now controls D2 and D3 again, and are partnered with MLS who controls D1. We might finally get US soccer under one roof like the other pro sports so they can move forward.
This is kind of what I'm hoping for. I would like to see all of the NASL team move to USL, yes including the Deltas, Cosmos and Miami. As well as all of the cities/teams talking to NISA moving to USL D3.
Why would it be a good thing to have a opaque, third party-owned league like USL control everything? I'm not saying that having a unified front might not have advantages.