Wolff wants SJ franchise now, without stadium

Goodsport · May 24, 2007

``We would like to get in now,'' Wolff said in an interview today. ``We think it's a healthy business.''
Click to expand...

So Wolff met with Garber last week, yet Wolff decided to publicly say this in an interview today?

That strongly suggests that Garber's answer (whether implied or direct) wasn't a straight-up "No stadium, no deal" as some are alluding to here.

-G

Minnesnowtasoccer · May 24, 2007

wait, off the topic but, has garber or any other official changed the tone from 16 teams in 2010 to 16 in 2012 or is this just a misquote

AndyMead · May 24, 2007

superdave said: ↑

Funny how paranoid fans don't understand that 1996 wasn't 2005.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's the way everything is phrased today. In absolutes. Doug Logan said Seattle would get an MLS team if Seahawks Stadium was built, so that's incontrovertible precedence. A politician who espouses one opinion at 25, but another one at age 45 is now a "flip-flopper." The Chicago Fire won MLS Cup as an expansion team in 1998, so it's reasonable to pick Toronto FC as having a chance this year.

There seems to be no concept that conditions actually change with time.

tedwar · May 24, 2007

Agreed, that conditions change with time, but one condition that has changed is, for the first time since MLS began, you have an interested owner for San Jose, who can back up what he says. This isn't Tony Amanpour or the Sharks here.

Tony

ElJefe · May 24, 2007

JazzyJ said: ↑

By that logic Houston should not have a team.
Click to expand...

Beerking · May 24, 2007

smokarz said: ↑

teams playing in other people's back yards looked very bad on tv, remember there's a tv rights fee now. it messed with mls schedules. has very poor attendances. doesn't offer any additional revenues (as a matter of fact it eats away revenues as you have to rent the stadium)
Click to expand...

*cough*..Houston, KC, DC..*Cough*

ElJefe · May 24, 2007

Baysider said: ↑

With something as big as expansion there really aren't any rules. Everything is a special case.

If they move back to SJ with out a confirmed stadium deal it doesn't mean that they have to do the same in other cities.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm personally of the opinion that Wolff is further along on the stadium front than we might know. Let's face it. Lew Wolff knows the business and knows that he can't have a profitable Quakes team playing at Spartan Stadium and that he has to have his own place. So he wouldn't be clamoring for this if he didn't know that it was going to be a temporary situation. Plus, by having a team playing already and perhaps drawing well (which the Clash did do in the league's early years), it's a show of good faith to the Powers That Be there that a stadium for the Quakes is not going to be money down a rathole.

Honestly, I would say that this is the biggest sign that a new Quakes stadium is a "when," not an "if." Wolff wouldn't be wanting to do this if he wasn't sure that it was going to be a temporary situation. After all, does he want to be losing money at Spartan ad infinitum? Of course not.

Calexico77 · May 24, 2007

Bring it.

Quakes for 2008.

This whole Chivas-rivalry thing just isn't working for us.

ThreeApples · May 24, 2007

metros11 said: ↑

I'm actually surprised that no one has mentioned this (or maybe I missed it), but Wolff might be thinking that if he fails to secure a stadium deal in San Jose, he can go the route of Robert Kraft and have the Quakes play at Cisco Field. I know thats still 4 years away, but considering that he would be controlling the revenue I don't see why he wouldn't think of this as an option. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Nobody's going to accept a baseball stadium as a long-term solution. If the franchise is granted under these circumstances, here are the possibilities of what could happen:

Plan A: The plans for the FMC site near the airport, to be presented to the City Council on June 12, work out, and everybody's happy.
Plan B: A stadium deal gets worked out somewhere else in San Jose.
Plan C: A stadium deal gets worked out in some other city in the area.
Plan D: Wolff sells the franchise to a potential expansion owner somewhere else in the country.

SoccerPrime · May 24, 2007

Plan Z: Play at new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara....lots of options for a Bay Area team, when it comes down to it. Not sure how viable they all are though.

ElJefe · May 24, 2007

Noah Elliott said: ↑

Plan D: Wolff sells the franchise to a potential expansion owner somewhere else in the country.
Click to expand...

When did the San Jose Earthquakes become the Washington Senators?

Goodsport · May 24, 2007

Just got this SSV newsletter :

Dear SSV Member:

It was exactly one year ago that MLS announced Lew Wolff's acquisition of an exclusive option to bring MLS back to the Bay Area. Today, Bloomberg.com reports that Wolff wants to exercise his option now to bring back the Quakes in 2008.

We didn't expect this story to break so early, but we're glad that he decided to spill the beans. This announcement puts the June 12 San Jose City Council meeting in the proper perspective. If that meeting goes well, we may see the Earthquakes take the field just 10 months later. (We can't guarantee the team's return, of course, but that's why this meeting is so important. A big turnout may make the difference.)

So, we're asking you to pull out all the stops. Do whatever you can to get to that City Council meeting. Tell your friends. Bring your teams. (Think of it as a civics lesson for those of school age.) We all know how impressive a sea of Earthquakes blue can be, and that's exactly what we want to show Mayor Reed and the City Council.

The meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall, 201 East Santa Clara Street. See you there!

* * *

If you're curious about what else Lew Wolff has to say, Bloomberg TV will be airing an interview with him tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. Bloomberg TV is aired on DirecTV channel 353, channel 203 on Dish Network, and 128 on Comcast cable. You can also watch live online here. Bloomberg Radio, which is available at channel 129 on XM and channel 130 on SIRIUS, will air the interview five times this Saturday. You can listen to Bloomberg Radio online here -- click on "Launch Audio Player" in the left-hand column.

* * *

For an in-person update on all things Earthquakes, David Alioto, executive vice president of Earthquakes Soccer, LLC, will be asked to speak at the SSV/Earthquakes Soccer bash which will be taking place at the Britannia Arms downtown immediately after the USA/China match on June 2. We've added some more raffle prizes to our stash thanks to a donation by Fox Sports, and we may have some more surprises there as well. Tickets to this SSV fundraiser are available here but remember, we only have a total of 200 to sell and when they're gone, they're gone.

Yours in soccer,
SSV
Click to expand...

-G

AndyMead · May 24, 2007

tedwar said: ↑

Agreed, that conditions change with time, but one condition that has changed is, for the first time since MLS began, you have an interested owner for San Jose, who can back up what he says. This isn't Tony Amanpour or the Sharks here.

Tony
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I think this is the real deal. Whether details are made public or not, I hope that MLS doesn't grant an expansion team on a "trust me" promise. It can appear in public, and here on the boards that way, but as long as behind the scenes there's meat on dem bones, I'm fine with it.

marford21 · May 24, 2007

Revolt said: ↑

His stadium plan will be tied to large-scale residential/commercial development entitlements. Its a fairly neat way to get the deal done without massive taxpaper subsidies on the stadium front.
Click to expand...

If its the site next to the airport, I highly doubt its gonna include residential

Stan Collins · May 24, 2007

AndyMead said: ↑

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I think this is the real deal. Whether details are made public or not, I hope that MLS doesn't grant an expansion team on a "trust me" promise. It can appear in public, and here on the boards that way, but as long as behind the scenes there's meat on dem bones, I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...

Right, "I can deliver a stadium, trust me" needs to be, for Garber, the beginning of a long conversation, in which Garber's first response should be something to the tune of "pretend I'm from Missouri--and Show Me."

All in this thread we've seen examples of the good old Fundamental Attribution Error; that is, the tendency to assume personality factors explain actions in others that would one would attribute to situations were oneself doing the acting.

But despite Wolff's allegedly superior personality traits, Garber won't just say an easy yes for the same reason AEG didn't--not because they lack vision or just don't understand, but because of C.R.E.A.M.

Sentiment and 35 cents won't buy you much but a Washington Post when the Dollars don't make Sense. Anyone who tells you the issue is any different came here to play Jesus to the lepers in their head.

balatonsurfer · May 24, 2007

Why would MLS give this area another team? Weren't the 4,000 fans during a championship run per match enough of an indication that this market is awful?

AndyMead · May 24, 2007

balatonsurfer said: ↑

Weren't the 4,000 fans during a championship run per match
Click to expand...

link?

guamster · May 24, 2007

Back to the Bay: A's owner gets green light on MLS franchise for '08

Major League Soccer is on its way back to the Bay Area, SI.com has learned. The league has agreed to let Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff purchase and operate an MLS franchise by the 2008 season, even without a new stadium deal in place, a source close to the negotiations says.
Click to expand...

I hope his source is a good one.

sounderfan · May 24, 2007

Congrats to SJ if true!

Seattle '09!

Stan Collins · May 24, 2007

Well, I give Freedman credit for not reporting irresponsibly, and Garber credit for not risking the dumbest thing MLS has done in his tenure, some I'm going to assume El Jefe was right--that Wolff did have something to show along with his tell.

I also have to think it must be the Mineta Airport option, as I'd be surprised if they'd kept anything else a deadbang secret.

AndyMead · May 24, 2007

guamster said: ↑

Back to the Bay: A's owner gets green light on MLS franchise for '08

I hope his source is a good one.
Click to expand...

Your quote isn't what I'm reading.

from the article said:

Major League Soccer is close to making its return to the Bay Area in time for the 2008 season, SI.com has learned. The league is negotiating a deal to allow Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff to operate an MLS franchise sooner than anyone expected, even without a new stadium deal in place, a source close to the negotiations says.
Click to expand...

Calexico77 · May 24, 2007

AndyMead said: ↑

Your quote isn't what I'm reading.
Click to expand...

The article was edited. I saw the original title, and he is correct.

davez · May 24, 2007

rickker20 said: ↑

San Jose could the first city to lose 2 MLS teams. They need to have a stadium in place for them to get a team.
Click to expand...

You know, you are just the kind of Houston fan that makes San Jose Earthquakes fans upset... There is no way that Lew Wolff won't make this happen, and given that you are the recipient of a franchise without a stadium deal in place makes you hypocritical...

Given your logic, the league should disband the Dynamo, and go back to 12 teams... You not only don't have a stadium in place, you don't have local ownership...

athletics68 · May 24, 2007

davez said: ↑

You know, you are just the kind of Houston fan that makes San Jose Earthquakes fans upset... There is no way that Lew Wolff won't make this happen, and given that you are the recipient of a franchise without a stadium deal in place makes you hypocritical...

Given your logic, the league should disband the Dynamo, and go back to 12 teams... You not only don't have a stadium in place, you don't have local ownership...
Click to expand...

Wow, the truth hurts doesn't it Houston.

davez · May 24, 2007

Prazan said: ↑

The problem with this isn't Wolff running the team without a stadium. He is rich enough that if he wants to lose money for 5 years before he gets a stadium deal, he can do it without breaking a sweat. This isn't the Miami situation. The big problem with this is the precedent it is setting.

The rule has been clear - no stadium deal=no team. That has been useful not only for attracting serious potential owners, but also for those potential owners to negotiate with their respective cities. They have been able to say "Look, Mr. Mayor, you have to give us some help in getting the stadium or we won't get a team. Those are the MLS rules and they won't bend them."

If Wolff is allowed to get the team without anything approaching a stadium deal, all of that leverge instantly disappears for Wolstein in Cleveland, the guys in St. Louis, and the unnamed potential investors in Philly, among others. Why should Cleveland spend a nickel to help Wolstein after this? They can just tell him to buy a team without a stadium like Wolff did and maybe, at some point, they can talk about a stadium.

This would chop the legs right out from all of them. And for that reason, I expect Garber will say no.
Click to expand...

Then why did Houston get a team? No stadium deal, no local owner...