I agree, I think the league saw Sacramento as the 28th team. If not, I wonder which 28 cities were ahead of Sacramento? Are there even 28 cities that could support an MLS team. I am just spit balling here: Rochester, Baltimore, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, Austin, Louisville, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indy, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Omaha, St. Louis, San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Richmond, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, San Fran/Oakland, Vegas, Nashville, Jacksonville? Honolulu if it was feasible. In Canada, maybe Ottawa. Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Calgary would be so damn cold. Quebec City and Hamilton might not be big enough. To sum it up, I find it hard to believe that Sacramento was 28 behind. They should have been 15-18 behind at worst.
States as countries with comparable GDP. California and Texas have GDPs that, in theory, could support top 4 leagues on their own. New York and Illinois leagues wouldn't be bad either.
Yea, that is why I put it in my first line of the response. I was just wondering if there even were 28 cities you could put in front of Sacramento.
Sac will not be the 28th team. It will be no. 24 , or 25 at worst. Stadium completion timetable has a lot to do with it. LA still has negotiating to complete with USC . Miami , well . Nuff said. Sac could start digging in the Railyards tomorrow if they were awarded entry tomorrow. 2017 preseason is only 24 months away. And no I'm not saying Sac could compete their SSS in 24 months. But the have a nice place to play temporarily if they don't
Yup, that season ticket thing has always been a well-known secret. That's one of the main reasons why the Niners moved their stadium down to the South Bay--the same reason that the Braves mentioned when moving away from Atlanta
I think #23 would not be unrealistic. I cross posted this to the Sac Republic Super thread also: Interesting info in the newest article from Straus. http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...n-johnson-49ers-kings-kelvin-johnson-jed-York "The 49ers now hold a significant minority stake and the Kings round out a suddenly formidable investor group. The deal does more than add capital to Republic's coffers: it unites potential rivals firmly behind a single bid. That's something MLS, which intends to announce its next expansion teams in June, had asked for. And it's now something Johnson has delivered." The underlined issue could trip up the Minnesota bid in the short term. Definitely some market competition up there between the existing sport franchises. Sactown may leapfrog Minny and Miami
I'd think this puts Sacramento in the running to join with Miami, assuming the reports yesterday that Beckham had an announcement soon are true. Sac & Miami for 23 & 24 in 2018 or so wouldn't surprise me at all.
Trust me, all those season ticket holders are in snooty Clovis. There is not enough disposable income in Fresno proper.
There are no issues with the Minnesota bid[b[s[/b]. If MLS wants to announce a partnership with the Vikings they can do so tomorrow or they can wait and see what United want to do. The Loons ownership group may want to come out with one major announcement of a stadium and a MLS franchise. Rest assured the Twin Cities is a done deal we just have to wait and see. Everybody else also needs to get their ducks in a row. I still don't get why people are trying to say it's a MN vs Sac. It's not!
Seems to me @30King is saying this: The article makes it clear that MLS values united bid. MLS wants expansion bids to unite rivals and competitors to those bids. SRFC did this by bringing Vivek and the 49ers into the ownership group. Bring SRFC into MLS, and you'll be working with the Kings and the 49ers -- not against them. What does that mean for MN? Maybe it means that having two competing ownership groups is actually a negative for MN. Give the teams to the Vikings, and you're competing against MNU (and also the Twins and the Timberwolves.) Bring MNU into the league, and you're competing against the Vikings and whatever soccer Wilf hosts at his stadium. Is that building "That sense of the bigger picture, of local and regional links and a commitment to raise the collective tide," that MLS apparently wants in its expansion teams? Or is it putting an expansion team into a less then cordial and positive environment for growth? I'll tell you the other way to look at this: imagine a unified MN expansion bid. MLS would have accepted that bid long ago.
Well said. I would only add if Minnesota United disbanded two years ago MLS would have awarded a franchise to the Vikings. Like I said its not a MN vs Sac match. It's more what does MLS want to do with the Twin Cities? Well lets wait until June and see where everything stands, said MLS.
The MN bids are so interesting. On one hand you have the NFL owners and the other side you have the lower league team, Twins, and Wolves. I wonder if the Wild feel left out. Next, you have taxpayers who probably won't build another soccer specific stadium and are counting on soccer revenue from the new NFL venue. It will be on turf unless a SSS gets built. Even TCF is turf.
There are reasons why the Wolves and Twins got involved both owners have connections with local business and local politicians.
I wonder what happened there. hmmm.. Edit: I was playing around with my profile maybe I accidentally pressed something.