I'd sacrifice roster stability for a year if it meant getting two more profitable, MLS-backed teams on board. Granted, replacing SBFC with NYCFC, maybe getting the Revs to adopt the Breakers, etc. would also help. But the faster the league adds profits and raises salaries, the better, IMO. I'm not going to cry for roster stability until the financial stability - including getting off of allocation - is set.
I agree they need to move on expansion to stabilize the league, so I don't think they will wait, especially if there is a big enough interest by MLS clubs. When we can see the demand for, become greater then the supply of expansion teams being made available, teams like SBFC, and the Breakers, etc. may become more appealing to clubs not wanting to wait for the next round of expansion two or three years down the road.
I don't think that would be beneficial at all. The Revs don't have their own SSS, don't play in the city (or even in a suburb of that city), and have an owner who is not that passionate about the team. They just need to put together a decent team and their attendance will improve.
I don't remember ever seeing this announced, (which I guess isn't surprising considering it's WPSL,) but it seems that FC Dallas has reinstated its WPSL team after trying the league out for just two years ('11-'12) before [they've been in ECNL consistenly, though]. Not that I would peg Dallas for an NWSL team before many other possibilities (giving Texas a second team, especially with Houston not breaking 10k average, seems like poor distribution IMO) but at least it's another MLS team that seems to demonstrably be stepping up its investment in WoSo. *shrugs*
No way. One, why would FCD purchase a failing brand when they already have an existing one of their own to promote? Two, if any MLS team were to take over Sky Blue, it would be NYRB or NYCFC, both of whom Sky Blue has already established communications with. There's too much NY/NJ pride there for Hoff to sell the team elsewhere.
Hoff has an operator's agreement. He doesn't own the team, the League does. Something I don't know, and I'm guessing no other poster knows, is whether there's a term to the operator's agreement and whether the League has the right to terminate it in advance of expiration of the term. It's possible that the League simply could terminate the agreement, or it automatically could expire based on how it's written. The League then could enter into a new operator's agreement for a team in Dallas. I'm not suggesting this would happen, only that it's possible it could.
It seems I remember reading back before the 3rd season started that there was a statement made by someone from the league, that there would be an evaluation of the owners, or in this case, operators after the 3rd year. If that is true, there may have been an extension , but likely tied into certain conditions being met. Maybe, it is now on a year to year basis for some of the teams.
I know it's an operator's agreement, but I would be rather surprised if the league can unilaterally terminate/relocate a club without conspicuous violations of league policy, a la magicJack. Speaking of WPS teams, I would also think that the previously self-owned WPS teams wouldn't have signed away all their autonomy just to join NWSL. Either way, advance termination without egregious problems seems unlikely to me. Besides, even though it's clear Sky Blue is the slow child of NWSL, (I assume why @Binchy made the suggestion,) we still don't have any concrete signs that the team is actually in financial trouble, so I would also think not renewing the agreement at the expiration of a term seems unlikely as well. As long as Hoff has his books close-to-balanced, I think he still effectively has control of his team by gentlemen's agreement, even if officially the league has control. (Same with all the owners/operators/whatever.) I think it would take something rather catastrophic for the league to actually take action like that - and even then, it wouldn't be Sky Blue opting to relocate like Binchy's suggestion was worded, (similar to the San Jose->Houston situation in MLS or Austin->Orlando in USL, "relocations" are owner/operator-driven,) it would the league shuttering a team are reassigning rights.
I pretty much agree with all of this with one exception. As teams make progress with attendance, marketing, and the like, it is possible that one or two teams who are lagging very far behind will hurt the league's "brand." At that point. failure to progress may become an issue and the league might establish certain requirements that each team needs to meet -- not in terms of attendance numbers, but in terms of marketing as an example. I think the league already has done something along these lines in relation to game streaming.
I don't disagree in principle, but setting "branding" or "marketing" standards is going to be incredibly nebulous, still weak compared to other metrics for success, and also hard to penalize teams for if they're putting effort forward but still falling short. Again, unless a team is blatantly and intentionally violating league rules, I find it very hard to see good justification for shuttering a team.
not sure Dallas is the best choice. Dallas FC has been in bottom of the league(MLS) in attendance for several years. I'd say stick with getting Salt Lake City in first for 2017, then San Jose and Los Angeles.
For what its worth, Phil Murphy one of the 3 owners of SB has officially announced running for NJ governor (election 2017). One other owner, Steve Temares is CEO of Bed Bath & Beyond, whose stock is down about 45% from its all time high.
Interesting! So one owner/operator is almost certainly out for next year, and another might be to cut losses... Hoff might feel more pressure to give over the rest of his control if his partners are done.
Purchase? Maybe, especially if previous owner/operators remain on board to keep continuity, though I haven't seen a midseason purchase before. However, if you're expecting rebranding and/or a relocation, no way that happens until the offseason. You don't uproot/reboot a franchise midseason unless there's an absolute catastrophe happening - which shouldn't happen since I believe each team puts a down payment for each season as insurance against financial surprises.
It certainly would bring up an interesting scenario should the league expand by adding two more MLS club owners, and should something like Sky Blue to the Red Bulls also happen, that would mean the league would have half of the league teams owned by MLS clubs. What kind of impact could that have in the decision making and direction the league would take from that point on.
I think it would have very little impact, largely because ever since Houston joined the league, most of the expansion interest has been from MLS teams, so all of the decision-making and direction-steering over the past two years has already been planning on a majority-MLS future. The slow rise in salaries, the change in the allocation system, the shift to predetermined-site finals... All associable with a system that favors having multiple teams with big stadiums and low (or at least shared) overhead.
Even if SkyBlue gets bought by the RedBulls & Salt Lake & San Jose enter as teams #11 & #12, that would have 6 out of the 12 teams owned by their MLS counterparts. That's the same situation the WNBA is in. Six out of 12 WNBA teams are owned by their NBA counterparts(Phoenix, San Antonio, Minnesota, Indiana, Washington & New York); so I don't think it would be a big deal for the 6 non-MLS owned NWSL teams.
I want to see more Independently owned teams, and maybe even a few owned by NASL teams. That would make things interesting.
Still there are many unsolved problems with the existing independent owners that will need to be resolved, before the league would risk taking any more. Right now it is easier to add MLS club owners that have their own stadium and infrastructure in place, especially since there is a business model in place for other MLS clubs to follow.
Still there are many unsolved problems with the existing independent owners that will need to be resolved, before the league would risk taking any more. Right now it is easier to just add MLS club owners that have their own stadium and infrastructure in place, especially since there is a business model in place for other MLS clubs to follow.
Or blends in with the potential new New York expansion team. With or without Sky Blue, here's what New York should do .......... 1.) Get Canada to "allocate" Kadeisha Buchanan to NY (Canada should be on board with it, if okay with Buchanan) 2.) Get Canada to also "allocate" Ashley Lawrence to NY as well (since Buchanan and Lawrence are best friends) 3.) Trade the #1 overall draft pick and other assets to Houston for Carli Lloyd 4.) Pay for Marta. Get her to New York. She belongs in NWSL to finish her club career, and belongs in NY. 5.) Go after other Marta tag-alongs from the past, Caroline Seger, Ali Riley, etc. 6.) Make a move for Necib. She may retire, but one more year of club ball in New York might be tempting. 7.) If Raquel Rodriguez is part of NY (from Sky Blue), have her convince Shirley Cruz to jump on board. 8.) Draft Hannah Wilkinson later in the draft 9.) Need a goalkeeper. Aubrey Bledsoe would love to sign as a free agent in New York, so she could be a starter. 10.) Coach? Welcome on board Hope Powell. Now you've got to manage each of these big ego's.
I am not so sure with all that has been happening with the league, and the statement coming from Garber regarding more MLS clubs taking on an NWSL team in the future, that we might see the NY Red Bulls back in the picture, especially knowing that NYCFC is expressing an interest in getting a NWSL team.