Both in size and enthusiasm, the fan support in Sacramento is remarkable and blows many MLS teams out of the water. For that reason, it bothers me that MLS HQ has thus far prioritized bigger markets ahead of them. Even so, I think it's hard to argue that their franchise would be better off long-term under pro/rel.
Yes, and the effort in Sacramento is mostly trying to make it impossible for MLS to keep passing over the market, rather than pushing for pro/rel. Most Sacramento fans who think they should get a MLS franchise aren't pro/rel zealots or even in favor of pro/rel, but are thinking purely in terms of MLS expansion.
Serious question: has Sacramento actually been outright rejected? My Google searches produced nothing to that effect but admittedly I am not the best Googler. Is it just that they haven't been awarded expansion yet?
That's obvious. Ditto for Orlando. And San Antonio of the NASL. Of course, if MLS actually instituted their own version of Pro/Rel and USSF stipulated some basic standards (stadium/infrastructure/budget) for promoted clubs, a championship game in Tier 2 or 3 would have the relevance it currently lacks. But MLS has said it will never happen. Maybe that one guy from the Sac Bee is the only sports fan in Sacramento who finds Pro/Rel desirable.
The Republicans are currently dicking around in fourth place, with negative games in hand. I wonder how Furillo would react if the MLS franchise were given to Oklahoma City, Rochester, Colorado Springs or Louisville based on this season's results.
That guy is an idiot and a sports generalist. He's as likely to be writing about the Republic as a high school baseball game. The same guy that said Sacramento should try joining Liga MX. He admittedly knows very little about the sport, but now that he's a beat writer he's forced to do it. Says a lot about the type of mentality to which the simpleton arguments of pro/rel are appealing to, actually...
No. They were told that they would not be included in this round of expansion, but would be considered for future expansion. So once Atlanta, LA*, Minnesota*, and Miami* get in, Sacramento will be considered. * Assuming they get their stadium situations worked out.
Wait, if you change the entire thing ... it'll be different? Who knew ... Of course, if fans/clubs/markets did their own work rather than wanting a hand out from those that already have ....
Quoted for reference: Not sure why the games would lack relevance. They're championship games. They should be very relevant to the teams and their fans. The Gold Cup is relevant to teams in our region. There's also the unaddressed point that paying an expansion fee is not analogous with simply paying a fee to enter a team in a competition. You're paying into that single entity in return for access to all related benefits, most notably revenue sharing and having most of your players paid from a central resource. In that context, the entry requirements make a great deal of sense.
USSF has those standards. Sacramento is the only team in the USL that meets the USSF D2 standards with no additional investment. None in the NASL meet the USSF D1 standards, though a couple might be able to figure out temporary stadium situations if they're given enough time. (4 months is not enough time. They'd have to anticipate promotion.) And USSF D1 standards are well below MLS standards.
I don't think the USSF has D2 standards for teams, just for leagues. It should be noted that a bunch of the USSF D2 standards are of the form "All teams..." Now, I'm positive that the USSF doesn't have D1 standards. They only created the D2 standard to end the NASL/USL bitch slapping
There's a link to the USSF's D1 standards, which were created in 2015, somewhere else in this forum. The D1 standards are essentially an upscaled version of the D2 standards, but far below what MLS asks for in terms of finances/infrastructure/stadium. EDIT: created in early 2014 and reported on some months later. http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/ussf-league-structure.2011692/
Pie-in-the-sky argument considering MLS has stated in no uncertain terms that it ain't gonna happen-- y'know, like... ever times infinity... but here goes... Let's say two of those four clubs were offered a hypothetical "promotion" to MLS. Then, it becomes about standards... set them at a minimum stadium capacity of 15k with at least ten corporate suites and standard field dimensions without football lines... decide whether to give them a year or two or three to meet those standards... and if they can't, well... they can't move up. Better yet, let's offer a couple of those USL clubs "promotion" to the 2nd division NASL for 2016 (as long as they play at a stadium that holds at least 5k) while a couple of NASL teams in Atlanta and Edmonton are "relegated" to play in the USL... and let's say this time, the Cosmos and Rowdies are up for hypothetical "promotion" to MLS... same 15k-stadium capacity standards... would they be able to meet them? If not, wouldn't it be some powerful incentive to position themselves to meet them in the future? Of course, MLS would never let them in without at least $50mil up front, so now we're talking about a league of billionaires who'd have to want to completely dismantle single-entity AND stop harvesting pyramid-scheme-style expansion fees-- the ones where you still stand to lose millions in annual operating costs for pro soccer but make some of that money back on related side businesses and then ultimately decide to sell the club for $60 to $100 million after you initially bought it for $25 to $40 mil... that said, I'd love nothing more than to see a good relegation fight between Chicago, Montreal, Philly, and Colorado while NYCFC gets a first year expansion club exemption from relegation... imagine how much stronger 2nd division would be with two of those four MLS teams competing in the NASL in 2016 trying to play their way back in... it'd almost make me a Fire fan again to watch them actually have a chance at winning something for a change (even if it were in the NASL). I think we put the cart before the horse when new stadium construction is needed from communities in order to obtain a major league club, rather than developing and running a successful club over the course of years before asking the community to rubber stamp a new stadium.
... pie in the sky for sure. I mean we can point to countless clubs across soccer playing countries that show that this "incentive" doesn't really bring out this "positioning" for promotion later. But why make that investment when you can 'major' size it for 39cents more and get an MLS club instead? Buying into a business is common practice ... but it's pyramid-esque for the MLS? Is the few hundred thousand I'd have to fork over for a Subway franchise pyramid-esque? Or what about the monies it would cost me for those shares of IBM? How is it any different than Roman buying Chelsea? OOOOHHHH that only helped Chelsea, and not the EPL as a whole. Wait, you're seriously poo pooing smart business? .... and at the same time insinuating that this "operating loss" is only a danger to MLS franchise buyers and not say, the Venkys? ....well if we just assume a utopian 2nd tier existence for those clubs where they still are able to field that MLS level squad and sponsors didn't leave due to a change in status of the product they were sponsoring, and fans didn't bolt at a level that would compromise the main revenue source (despite the fact that everywhere you look in the soccer playing world it happens) and that the removal from national tv (and monies) didn't affect them ... .... sure. But this isn't FIFA 15 where I've replaced the English pyramid with a combination of MLS, Liga MX, NASL, and Liga Ascenso clubs.
Bubble. Not pyramid scheme. I realize Stefan Szymanski, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan, was also unclear on this concept. But it's not really an understandable mistake. When a pyramid scheme collapses, the early investors still have the money. When a bubble pops, the early investors are torched along with the newcomers - worse, if the early investors kept upping their ante. Which I think we can all agree Anschutz, Hunt and Kraft groups have done over the years. Sorry, pet peeve. Building a successful club before having a stadium is - well, that's what my local NPSL team is going to have to do, and probably yours too. But it's not the only route to success. Much as we talk about MLS standards for expansion teams, very few of their teams had their own stadiums when they started. They were able to leverage continued first division status into stadiums. I would think that's more of a function of long-term success and a fanbase, than simple divisional status. We'll see how far Indianapolis gets. They're not currently an MLS expansion frontrunner, but they're trying to build their own home. The Cosmos are also an easy example/target. They're on a pace to be at Hofstra longer than the real Cosmos were, so they need to choose whether their ups are going to be put or shut. And divisional status isn't going to help them either way.
What's with this "harvesting expansion fees" nonsense? When I talk about La Liga, I don't grossly embellish it by referring to it as "The Real Madrid and Barcelona Roadshow, where pro/rel gives them access to new cities to visit each season". The EPL isn't a central organization that pays everybody's squad from a collective kitty. When Manchester United sell some of our official wine, Chelsea don't get a cut. If Swansea want to bring Lionel Messi to the Premiership, the collective owners and league chairman, don't step in and do all they can to make it happen. When Bournemouth got promoted, they didn't get to cherry-pick unprotected players from around the league. Whether people like or agree those mechanisms and systems or not, they are there and they are significant resources that an owner benefits from Furthermore, the MLS "stadium requirements" aren't that at all. They are a preference and are used among multiple other factors, to determine the value of a particular location and ownership group to the league. NYCFC have very little by way of a nailed-down stadium plan. They do however have an ownership group that is well-placed both financially and in terms of involvement with the sport, to build a New York team into the flagship it ought to be. Philly had little more than a passionate fan group. They didn't even have a team. MLS saw value in that and were convinced to bring them in. Rochester had the stadium part down but financial issues scuppered their plans.
To be fair, MLS thought they had NY2's stadium pretty much done.. It just all fell apart after NYCFC took over. Philly didn't get a team until an ownership group was found and a stadium was nailed down. SoB just caused MLS to find an ownership group that could bring it across the line.
"Dan's points make sense, so I'll resort to an (admittedly poor) ad hominem statement in an attempt to discredit him" You don't need a degree in electrical engineering to know how a lightbulb works and you don't need a degree in economics to know the difference between a pyramid and a bubble.
Fair points but I thinks it's fair to say that the stadium was less a prerequisite in those cases and more part of working towards getting those teams set up in the best situation possible. The Quakes would be another example where stadium details weren't fully fleshed out when their hiatus ended, IIRC?
Absolutely not true by any stretch of the imagination. The Flushing Site never even got of the ground except for some nice PR work by the league and this rumored Bronx site was a pipe dream from day 1, they just thought the Yankees people would be able to get special favors. In both situations it never made it past the hope and dream phase. MLS awarded this team to Manchester City for the benjamins only knowing they had no legitimate stadium plan.
I think this is partly true. But the league knew than City had so much money and could make a private SSS happen just as long as a site was secured. Finding someone willing to throw 300M of private money at a SSS is not an easy thing to find, and they jumped at the chance when they found someone. But I completely agree that the 100M price tag was why they got in so quickly. But not exactly for the expansion fee itself. Remember a new club is going to be taking a slice of the sponsorship/TV money and the league itself is going to pay for the salaries, so its probably not that much of a net gain for current franchise owners to bring in a new investor. Maybe a few million dollars for a 1 time payment, but you have to give that new club a slice of the pie forever. What MLS really wanted was that 100M market price. The fact that City was willing to pay about 30M more for the franchise than what the market value was up until that point (about 70M) does 2 things... 1. Immediately increase the market value of current MLS teams. If the perceived value of each franchise increased 10M+ per club, for a 20 team club that is 200M+ worth of franchise value that was created overnight. 2. It sets a new price tag for all new franchises. If Orlando gets in at 70M and you decide to hold off on NYC and sell to Sacramento, Atlanta, Minnesota, LA2, San Antonio...they are going to come in wanting Orlando's price of 70M. But if you sell to NYC at 100M first then those new franchises will need to buy in at the 100M+ price tag. You end up making hundreds of millions of dollars more in the long run by selling to NYC first. Its not that bringing in NYC for 100M over a team like Sacramento for 70M made MLS an extra 30M, it made then hundreds of millions. That is why they are willing to accept playing in a baseball stadium for a few years.
The floating numbers for SA, which include a "range" for MLS expansion fee, in the sale process don't point to 100m for SA ... but I completely agree with your premise. I still think that if we get in it will be for less than 100m (granted we've got a stadium and it is ready for expansion and a hell of a lot sitting here waiting to go) on the fee and I think there are a few markets out there that could also do so.