Five Solutions for Preventing Future MLS Club Relocation

Hmmm. The article is well-meaning, but ignores the simple fact that, at the end of the day, professional sports franchises or clubs or whatever you want to call them are still businesses. That's probably why American fans, "simply shrug their shoulders and accept defeat", though I would term it accepting reality.

I think it'd be damn unfortunate if United left DC, but their owners have every right to turn a profit and you certainly can't say they haven't done their due diligence to try and get a SSS in the District.

 

Leaving behind the history of the club is becoming a more common thing, particularly if the local fanbase blows up. The Baltimore Ravens, OKC Thunder, Houston Dynamo, etc. left their previous histories behind when they moved to the new city. Another factor is if the league has plans to bring another franchise back to the city, either as an expansion, or by moving another club. If MLS doesn't plan on going back to DC, is there much point in "leaving behind" DCU's history? Particularly if the move is "only" to Baltimore and doesn't involve a rebranding.

And before I get jumped, I put the only in quotes because the distance between DC and Baltimore isn't that large, but I know they are considered different markets and there is significant difficulties for DCU's current fanbase to follow a team in Baltimore (travel, cultural, etc).

 

If you are serious, this is the most ignorant thing I've yet read on Bigsoccer.com

 

DC looks like the only MLS club in danger of this. If they do move to Baltimore, I say they should keep the records. If the ownership group takes their team elsewhere, I don't understand the whole "Leave the history behind".

It did work well for the Quakes, I'll give you that. But if San Jose had never come back, it would seem odd to have 2 MLS Cups not included for the Dynamo.

I don't really see MLS going back to DC if United does leave though. If they can't make it in that market, not sure anybody would go back to it in later years.

I would definitely want them to keep the United name though. If they move to Baltimore and change the name of the club, I might have to find a new team.

 

Unforunately he really is that deluded.

 

6. relocate dallas in the present.

 

I hate FC Frisco as much as any Dynamo supporter, but they are making money in their current location. I believe that 3 years from now if the San Antonio Scorpions start selling out like crazy...Chivas USA may actually move. If that whole contract thing about exclusive rights gets settled with the Spurs. Then we can have a nice epic triangle of Texas derbies. I would want Houston to go West with NYC2 taking Houston's spot. We'll have Cascadia, Texas, the Rocky Mountains, and California in the West. Toronto, Impact, New England, Chicago, KC, DCU, NYRB, NYC2, Columbus, and Union in East. You get to bring back the Texas derbies but on steroids, keep the Rocky Mountain Cup, the Northeast rivalries, and travel is diminished.

I'm also posting this on expansion since it feels like it belongs there, too.

 

Of course there are complicated logistical issues to deal with when moving any business, but beyond that it's really not that complicated. As long as the league they are playing in approves of the move, soccer clubs and other sports franchises don't have any more requirements than any other business. And your ManU point makes absolutely no sense. I'm sure if they really wanted to United could relocate anywhere in England...but why would they? They already have a great stadium and a large, loyal fan base.

Who? Who is going to require this of Will Chang? If Boeing leaves Seattle they aren't required to leave behind an auto repair shop just for shits and giggles.

 

Yes you absolutely can.

 

Step one: Build them a stadium in a good location
Step two: see step one

 

Never heard of this right before.

 

Are you joking?

 

no.

 

Well "Right to turn a profit" could read as they have the right to always have a profit.

Maybe they deserve a way to look to turn a profit.

 

I'm going to go on the street to sell weed and once I'm arrested and end up in court I'm going to use "right to turn a profit" as my defense.

 

Pursuit of happiness! Profit makes rich people happy!

Seriously though there is no requirement under a capitalistic society to operate at a loss. Even in industries that are heavily regulated, there are substantial make whole provisions which ensure that companies that perform adequately do not loss money. The key is the business has to make the correct decisions to take advantage of that fact. In the case of this conversation, that could include moving.

I think the issue is as fans we have an emotional attachment to the club and look at it as ours. However, the reality is that unless you are the Packers, we have no right to the club. We did not take the risk. That statement is even more black and white in a situation like DC where the municipality did not support a stadium. I am not sure how fans (myself included) can logically argue that there is some right to have the team stay. Someone pointed it out before, rather flippantly, but it is true; support the club by way of attendance and a STADIUM and teams will not move. If they city cannot meet that level of commitment then why should the ownership continue to lose money when another opportunity to make a profit arises?

As for the suggestion of making a team support a lower division team: cannot happen. I am not saying the theory is poor but the reality is that you cannot force an investor to essentially open a new business - especially since these investor owners are part of MLS and there is no requirement for them to have any investment in the other leagues.

 

The OKC Plunder is using Sonic stats and history in their media guide. Charles Barkley wnt off on this on air last season.

 

It's a "shared" history, but I believe all the trophies, banners, and what not are stored at the Seattle Museum of History and Industry until a new NBA franchise comes to Seattle, if one does.

 

Comparing selling weed to running DC United. I love it. Except selling weed actually turns a profit.

Considering the turnover ratio in NASL/USL I coult never agree with this.

 

There is no right to make a profit. I swear, I know the term was used a bit loosely, but there is too much talk these days of people having rights they absolutely don't have.

Right to smoke? Nope. Right to use my property any way I want? Uh, no. Ever heard of zoning or nuisance?

Right to make a profit? Nada. If there was, then losing money would be a violation of an owners' right to make money. It would be a rights violation to go broke.

And sport is not a business in the traditional sense.

The secret to preventing moves is fan ownership (Green Bay Packers) or local ownership of the team, or some combination of the two. And getting an owner who doesn't merely treat the club as an investment, but something more akin to an investment in the community, for the community.

 

Right to healthcare? no!