Appeal to American soccer fans for NASL

Good point, I hadn't realized that, or that much at all regarding Reno. I do hope the team & city success regardless.

 

Why are you changing the topic? This was about ownership and whether they could afford D2 and whether they have MLS aspirations don't mean anything. These are great expansions that will be in USL for at a minimum 5-10 years (Except for Sacramento) That's good for the league. Stadium issues for the small level required for D2 can be overcome. The vast majority are already over 5k and it won't take that much to add 1k seats to these stadiums. Some like Charlotte already are planning to move into larger stadiums. That won't take much to fix and can be done in a short amount of time.

You see, your hatred and fear of USL has clouded you from the realization that they are rolling now. They are filling out a national map that will have close proximity games that will allow for away supporters. They are also getting markets that NASL should have been going after 5 years ago. If they had, then NASL wouldn't be in the position they are in now with four teams out of 13 in Florida. That is a great setup for those four by the way...not so good for the other 8. Especially SF who will come in with its nearest road game in OKC.

 

Just to be clear I think the sabre rattling of ownership groups who want the benefits of D1 without being able to afford/or pay 100 million is equally as nonsensical as those groups who want the benefits of D2 without being able to afford/pay 3 million. If the health of the pyramid comes down to cheapskates & petty feuds then that's worrisome for me.

I am not changing the topic, I'm trying to show you that you're a hypocrite because your hatred & fear for the NASL is giving you a warped sense of reality on the issues at hand. The thing is you make it seem like USL is a gift from the soccer gods the same way the NASL nutters do. Your beating the war drum for no reason except to toot your own tires. Every time I show you facts contrary to what you're saying you give me "ya but's" as in "ya but Charlotte is making moves" "ya but USL is vetting D2 type groups because they are serious" etc etc. Stop! Take a breathe, please.

Other things: SAFC will need to be in the MLS before 6 years so they're gone. SF's closest game will be Edmonton not OKC.
Regarding Florida: The reason you wanted Indy 11 in the USL is so you could have the same concentration of 4 teams in one geographical area in your league because you're jealous of NASL's Florida. <- this is not to provoke you btw, actually think about that one.

 

Expansion fees in USL are at a minimum equal to NASL and in some cases more. I am done with this conversation, because you have finally convinced me that you aren't up to the task. You are either not reading or not comprehending. Have fun in your dream world.

 

NASL has been threatening to sue USSF since August/September 2015, but still has not pulled the trigger. That speaks volumes.

 

I still cannot find anything credible that suggests USL expansion fees are what you claim. I apologize for hurting your feelings. If you track the conversation back from where you started touting the farm system to this comment you'll see I am not for the NASL over the USL. I am against the farm team model because I think it weakens the state of soccer in USA by pushing independent teams out. You can disagree with me on this, and we can continue the conversation. I was only trying to understand the rationale behind why you think the farm system would not harm the independents.

The issue between us seemed to happen after I called you out on the incorrect information you had in this post:

After my response to this you were taken aback and began thinking I was attacking the USL specifically and you got onto the warhorse opposed to the NASL. To which I wanted no part of, but entertained the conversation in in the hope of helping you realize that this sort of thinking does nothing. Sorry, my methodology was flawed.

Throughout this thread I referenced several times why I wished to exclude the pseudo-MLS teams in the USL as independents to which I was concerned about. I never wavered on that topic. Your remarks against me as a USL hater really bothered me because I viewed it as straw-maning on your behalf against me instead of recognizing that I was calling you out on specific USL-centric views that do not aid in the conversation. Believe it or not I find the discussion of a farm-like system intriguing regardless if I don't think its a good idea.

Sorry sawillis,

FS

 

No worries man. We aren't going to agree on this and it's fine. I do appreciate the post. I may have a little PTSD from the NASL truthers on r/mls lol

ETA: Not sure where that first quote came from

 

How? What changes? Pressure to spend more on players? Maybe, but I don't think MLS teams will spend a ton of money, it's a development team, it's a way for them to get some talent on the cheap and develop them so they can have cheap options for the MLS roster so they can spend more on non USL talent to bring in. They're not going to spend just to win games, they want to spend on the young talent a bit, but that won't make them more competitive than some USL independents with good older talent.

 

You're right, the development teams won't drive up prices on the players they want to bring up to the MLS. The independents will, and I'm worried about the effects of that.

What I'm saying is; suppose if a bidding war were to happen and the average USL salary doubled or tripled because of it, that would effect the independent teams negatively if they couldn't compete with the MLS2 teams doing the same thing. If the MLS2 teams participated in the bidding war it would spell doom for the independents: thats my concern.

So basically if the MLS2 teams don't play along and focus primarily on development, and tank as a result then it hurts the USL as a league with half the teams not playing ball to compete (this is a concern other people have about reserve teams that is not my belief, it is merely a hypothetical in this case). The independents dominate the league and it seems less credible as a D2 and stagnants growth of the game. <- I don't see this happening

Like I said before though, I am not against MLS2 teams eventually being in a D2 league whether it be USL, NASL, a new different league. I am only against the whole league advancing divisions for the wrong reasons or at the wrong time.

 

I don't understand why the "initial" bidding war between Independent teams started to begin with in this scenario. I don't see how MLS2 teams create that bidding war ... or how moving from D3 to D2 would start it. I won't be shocked if a salary cap is started for USL anyways.

 

The initial bidding war would be between the independents in D2: NASL & USL. They'll be competing for the same players, sponsorships and TV deals. Outbidding the other secures their existence and competitiveness. MLS2 teams would further instigate it/antagonize it. I don't think they would ignore it for long, yet I don't think they would initiate it either.

 

I'm sorry, but this is already happening ... not sure it's out of control or what would cause it to get out of control. Ideally, NASL teams would spend more across the board, but it may happen with the top 10 teams in each league instead of the top 20 teams (NASL). But I don't see how USL going to D2 will increase this significantly. But that's just my opinion.

 

The overlap that its happening on now is marginal. USL independents are not yet attracting national team players to the same extent the NASL currently is, or washed up big names either for that matter. Even footing on divisional status would -IMO- change that.
In the future something like the Totti rumours wouldn't be linked to NYRBII but maybe teams like FCC*, Cosmos, & TBR resulting in a bidding war. At 39 years old he might be a poor example for this sort of thing, but a slightly younger more valuable veteran could instigate this sort of bidding war. One case wouldn't make the sky fall but it could trigger a bidding war. This sort of thing already happens in the NASL to an extent as well, but its not for huge bucks yet and the MLS teams are not involved to the same extent. The salary cap and other financial regulations in the MLS keep this stuff in check, which is a good thing.

*I chose this USL club because between it and SAFC, SRFC and STL I believe it would be the last to join the MLS.

Reflecting on this again made me realize that this would be a great solution to my worries. A salary cap for the USL would mitigate a bidding war with the NASL and MLS2 teams. Good point!

 

link?

 

I think it's fair to say that though ... they JUST NOW got a West Coast club and until they take the field they don't count (VA, OKCFC). With the moving parts they're only up 4 teams from 2011 ... and it's also pretending like there weren't issues from 2011 to this year in terms of finding ownership groups. 3 this year (with one having to join in the 2nd half) and you're only up 4 in the last 5 years! Two groups vaporized ...

... so I don't think the statement is really that far off.

 

Only difference, and it's crucial IMO, is the NASL/USL split ... and the direction the NASL forged. It was an explicit choice by this group and the going is rougher than they figured it would be (I'd put money on it).

What the MLS faced was entirely different. You can't compare the two. There was ZERO established soccer landscape when they started ... the NASL was forged from existing clubs/owners/markets in (a comparatively speaking) well established soccer landscape.

Even with that, their attrition/dead on arrival rate is greater than the MLS' is/was ... 3 of the 8 founding members are no longer around, it's first ever expansion side is no longer around, and two planned/expected expansions never happened (although a different group is in one of those markets).

If you want to mention the "competition" aspect ... then you need to admit the "help" aspect that the MLS has lent to the picture as well.

 

HailtotheKing, So?

Your stats are correct, there is a discrepancy in the success rate between MLS & NASL franchises, the times, circumstances, and landscapes are different and.... what? The USL/NASL split is the crucial difference?

That has nothing to do with individual NASL franchises' current success or failure; it's water under the bridge now. No future fan of SF could possibly care. FtL's problems are its own making. Indy's success is due to the efforts of the folks there. How does the date of the NASL's first west coast franchise matter? And to who?

Most of the current owners of NASL franchises were not around for the split. They also knew the financial realities their franchises undertake to be successful someday; and bought in. Is it going tougher than you thought? I thought? They thought?

The NASL is making it's own way. It's slow, very slow; so?

 

You keep repeating this or some version of it, but I disagree.

If MLS feels that a healthy lower league for their 2 teams to compete in is worth something then MLS can simply subsidize the independents. It's already started off indirectly with MLS helping the USL with their online infrastructure and some marketing, but I can see this expanding. For instance MLS using it's leverage combined with MLS/USL economies of scale to get price breaks at hotel chains and other travel expenses (If you want to be the official hotel sponsor of the MLS, you also gotta give USL teams price breaks, ect). If more is needed direct cash injections are a possibility.

I realize this idea of the MLS subsidizing smaller clubs and pooling revenues/sharing costs is shocking considering the structure of the league, but it is a possibility.

 

There is already conflicts with sponsorship deals between the two leagues. They'd likely need to get that sorted out before they worked on some communal hotel deal. Perhaps they might.

If a franchisee in the USL fails the contract he/she will be stripped of the assets. This possibility will likely only happen to the independent teams in the USL. I've stated previously why I think this will be the case.

However if the MLS shares its SUM money and TV deals with the USL it is an entirely different story, yet I don't see that happening. The MLS2 teams are already incidentally part of that revenue source and don't need to spend money on other things to turn a profit the way USL independents do. IMO the ownership model of the USL's growth is stagnated by including the MLS2 teams in their system: The independents without the wherewithal to actually go to the MLS are the ones who will suffer. Those teams will likely be taken over, changed hands, reorganized or "subsidized by MLS" (as you refer to it) however you want to dress it up they'll be gone.

 

So first off, I should state that I didn't start really watching soccer until I was 24 and living in Germany. After that I was a... more than casual? fan of the German and USMNTs for the next 5 years. Didn't start paying attention to MLS until '09 when the Sounders got a team (was stationed at Lewis, married a local).

Before that I was an Auburn fan. And by Auburn fan I mean that my parents went to Auburn, my Aunts and Uncles went to Auburn, I was born less than 5 miles from Jordan-Hare, grew up with parents season ticket holders and even when nationally televised listening to Jim Fyffe on the Auburn network, going to Auburn for college, getting kicked out of Auburn, still going to Auburn games until I joined the military...

Big fan.

Which means I'm used to revenue sharing and for the Auburns and Alabamas to support the Vandys, Kentuckys and Mississippi States. It's just what you do so you have a successful league.

So if it is true that having independent teams in USL is a benefit to MLS (through helping develop future players on their MLS2 teams) and if it's true that these independents will be non-viable moving forward (yet to see evidence to support) I still have no problem wrapping my head around MLS supporting these teams through both direct and indirect subsidies.

It's how sports work. Unless you think the SEC isn't a good league. I am potentially biased, but I think it's pretty good.

 

I didn't ask for any of this, and fail to see any relevance but cool.

I haven't a clue was SEC is, nor does google as far as a league is concerned so you lost me there.

USL independents support the reserve league of the MLS as a marketing tool as well as provide them with more diverse competition. <- So yes having them is a benefit to the MLS presently.

USL independents are less financially backed (by a factor of more than 100 to 1) then MLS2 teams.
USL independents are not going to be a part of the billionaires club that is MLS LLC.

USL independent owners are structured legally as franchisee's that rent the teams off of the USL league entity. They have ceded brand ownership to the USL. <- it's another discussion altogether how independent that really makes them.
As a USL independent operator, failure to meet criteria on your franchise agreement with the USL results in all of your assets being stripped off of you and owned by the league. <- this will not happen to the MLS2 teams ever.

What I've been saying is that the independents in the USL have put themselves at a disadvantage by bringing in the MLS2 teams. If you ask someone in M&A what this looks like from an economics perspective it is a hostile takeover of one franchise to another. Its not a merger whatsoever.

The independents will never be able to compete with the MLS without subsidy (this you acknowledge) and market forces will result in big business taking over small business just as it does elsewhere. How long do you think MLS will keep independents if they're just a cost of doing business and there's no other competition in the USA?

NB: I don't think revenue sharing,single entity structure, or any of that is wrong at all. It's just what the USL independent owners choose was not good for themselves -objectively- nor for soccer at that level -IMO-.