There is no nearside. That’s the baseball outfield. What you saw is what there was. If you watch a Reign match, they film from the opposite side and there’s nothing over there. Again, it’s not about the specifics of the numbers: it’s about using their figures as a proxy for how a development side can generate a following when the reality is that the stands are empty.
I haven’t lived in the NW in 18 years but last fall I drove through Tacoma and I-5 was under construction in the same damn place it was 20 years ago (the Tacoma Dome). Everyone hates driving through Tacoma.
I think you could argue Tacoma Defiance would get better attendance in a little bit more of an appropriate league. But their attendance has been fine. But then I have gone to old USL Sounders games. I have gone to old Spokane Shadow games (PDL). Tacoma is a perfect fit for a second team whether it has independent branding or not. It's still basically in the parent market but far enough away to embrace a little bit of their own identity. And the Tac Defiance branding is awesome. They weren't about to get a stadium built before the pandemic for no reason. Curious what kind of ratings they get on ESPN+. But Tacoma isn't a market for a true independent pro team imo. It's too close to Seattle. I could see Spokane(sounds like they are building a stadium and will likely get a team) and possibly the Tri-Cities having pro teams in Washington. Which would be awesome.
Yeah… That’s another reason why people don’t go to Tacoma… Every time they “finish” a construction project on I5, it’s just in time to start a new one because traffic got worse. Just.. this time they f’d up the construction and a curve is so sharp that trucks are tipping over at highway speeds. Your tax dollars at work! The good news is the wood pulp mill installed new filters so the Tacoma Aroma is mostly gone.
Yeah.. they definitely aren’t a USL-C team. While the games are entertaining, the Sounders like to have Academy kids play when they are at home, so they tend to be very one sided and it’s not the Defiance’s side.
Not sure what you're trying to prove here? 2nd division in general is an uphill climb, the successful teams are the outlier at the moment not the norm. You mentioned the Birmingham Legion, I've actually been to several games here and the stadium has been maybe 1/4 to 1/3 full (which has a capacity of 5k); they also constantly use early MLS-days promos like $1 hotdogs and BOGO offers/giveaways to try and get people to come and boost their attendance distribution. Every time I've gone to their team store downtown I've been the only person inside, and I have yet to see someone around town (I live in the suburbs) wearing a team jersey or shirt. I do think if Atlanta United 2 rebranded as Kennesaw FC or something and attempted to look "independent" from the parent club they might garner a few more random fans, which in the end might be worth the minimal effort it would take in the long run (the sponsorship would be ready made as well ).
I think the Red Bulls will continue to field a team in the USL Championship as well as the new league.
Does USL have a mechanism to expel a team in good standing? That might send a chill through the other independent franchises, basically pushing them to consider switching to the MLS alternative.
Whether they paid the expansion fee or not doesn't matter. USL let them in the league and can't just kick them out unless there is a mechanism to do so. That mechanism could be in the agreement USL made with MLS to allow the 2 teams in, or in the USL bylaws.
Their agreement is a different arrangement than a regular franchisee. This was the basis for speculation that USL would push all of the reserves teams into USL1, as well. The original agreement ended at the end of 2020, and, while I'm not sure anyone has exact details, publicly they now say they have a "year-to-year agreement" (per https://theathletic.com/2136000/2020/10/13/mls-reserves-league-usl/), which definitely says to me that USL can walk away after the season is over (which I'm not saying they necessarily would - just that their obligations to NYRBII are really different than to New Mexico United).
I'm not sure why USL would kick a team out, unless they considered the new league a competitor, which I don't think it is.
Why don't you think it is? If MLS teams are planning to put their development teams in different markets than first team, that seems like they'd be competing with USL for potential expansion locations, doesn't it?
Unless it's a matter of "walking away" after the end of a contract, the USL league office choosing to kick out a member in good standing against its will (speculation at this point) would set a precedent that could affect its relationship with its independent teams. Having a ban hammer and using a ban hammer are two different things. There's a reason why the MLS Board of Governors didn't take Chivas USA away from the Vergaras nor the Crew away from Precourt - despite the fact that the Board of Governors has that power. Once that power is exercised - even in an extreme case, it makes it easier to use again, or at least that would that would be the reasonable fear of any owner in the league. The NFL never kicked out Al Davis or Jerry Johnson. MLB never canned Marge Schott. It took a huge outcry for the NBA to act on Sterling. And there was "cause" in all of those cases. If NYRB II wants to stay in USL - and they've got a contract with the USL that hasn't expired and isn't contravened by NYRB having another affiliate in MLS's D3, then I can't imagine the USL unilaterally kicking them out - unless there is universal support of the USL owners. Now, obviously, there are a ton of caveats here. We don't know what the language or term of the MLS/USL agreement is. We don't know NYRB's intentions. And so on. My basic point is that it's standard for league operating agreements to contain methods to expel or force the sale of a member team. It's a whole 'nother thing to see that power exercised, not just because of the threat of litigation or blowback, but because of the message it sends other owners and in a growing organization - potential owners that their investment is potentially a lot shakier than they imagine and may be taken away from them on a whim from outside forces.
When they said they are open to non-MLS teams joining I envisioned USL reserve teams. Surely no independent team would join a league where attendances are in the hundreds. There already is a USL Academy League but that only goes to U19 level.
If their arrangement is year-to-year, they wouldn't be "kicking them out". They would just not renew their arrangement. I mean, I agree with you that they can't kick them out (implying that they mutually agreed to extend their agreement), but it certainly doesn't seem like they have to "let them play" next year, either.
Charlotte FC has already said that they're interested in putting their MLSD3 team "in a different market".
A different market could mean Kannapolis, Triad region or down south to Fort Mill or Columbia. Either way it would be somewhere that is accessible to Charlotte, particularly where first team plays.
USL is not walking away if there is a mechanism by which they can remove NYRBII. Even if there is a year-to-year agreement, there's going to be requirements that need to be met before that agreement is dissolved. Without seeing the actual agreement, we don't know what those requirements are. It could be something as simple as "Either side may terminate at any time", or there could be "mutual consent", or it could be as complicated as there needing to be a cause (such as creating a competing league). Regardless of the mechanism, it is in USL's best interest to maintain a good relationship with MLS. In part because having MLS loan players to USL teams is good for both sides, but also because having an amiccable relationship means USL may be able to ask MLS to not put a team in certain markets if they don't want them there. The last thing USL needs is a repeat of what happened with NASL. While USL ended up winning that fight, MLS's pockets are a lot deepter than NASL's.