It's seriously laughable that people still bring up VSI and Phoenix as black marks on the league. The league made a bad decision and quickly fixed it. They didn't try to prop up a useless franchise, or worse, have a LEAGUE OWNED team just to stay in a market. Seriously, both of those situations have been improved (addition by subtraction ... which is the case for the Dayton Dutch Lions too) and ... the league was able to bring in a better ownership group (also happened in Charlotte). How those are still being trumpeted as USL failures is beyond me. Every soccer league in this country makes mistakes in expansion, even the MLS (see Chivas). How quickly and how effectively you fix those mistakes is key. NASL would have been better off distancing themselves from OKC and Virginia sooner than they have been, but ... at least they're not forcing the issue. League Owned Atlanta shouldn't give NASL fans a reason to tout their "high standards" ... and I hope they don't continue to do that much longer.
Yes, because the NBA propping up the Hornets/Pelicans when their owner bailed was bad for that league. Doing the same for Minnesota United didn't turn out bad for the league. You do know every single MLS team is league owned? The ability to keep a team up and running while trying to find a new owner only shows the strength of the league, not the weakness.
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but don't believe I said it WAS bad for the league ... I'm just saying that comparitively speaking ... which is worse? Maybe even that's the wrong thing to question even ... really, I don't hold it against either league to do what's best for the league. Like I said, everyone makes expansion mistakes. VSI was a mistake, but in the grand scheme of things, what did it cost USL? Nothing. Pheonix? It actually may have inspired or encouraged a group to come to the rescue ... and it looks at least at this moment in time, that that group is doing things right. I guess the point I was trying to make is ... glass houses and all. No league is stock full of amazing ownership groups. Every league makes expansion mistakes ... why all of the hostilaty? If someone can't look at USL and see that they're better off in the place their currently in than they were even 2 short years ago ... then I'm sorry, you're in denial. I can't say the same about NASL because of Atlanta being what it is, Minnesota going where they're going ... and no concrete expansion plans for 2016 and beyond. And waiting until this summer to announce ... they would be going against their recent announcements if they give someone less than a year to get ready to play ... which makes it seem "reactionary". That is all. I do hope they get a team in the places they need to get to (out west) and hope they continue to strengthen. I think they're in position to lose a few more teams to the MLS (San Antonio and Indy) and I hope they can keep growing despite those things. I also wouldn't think it's the end of the world if some of their current ownership groups decide to move to USL when they get D2 sanctioning ... they'd be the same organization as they were before, only spend less on travel budgets and more on player salaries/development/scouting. Ofcourse, I am not a fan of leagues because of business models ... so I don't really care which league is better in that way, I just like good solid ownership groups/clubs.
In both cases, it was done out of bitchiness, same with the Puerto Rico debacle and the whole Caribbean division. In fact, name a market they didn't rush into that doesn't feel like some attempt to block NASL? That, for instance, OKC is working out for them is less to do with the expansion and more to do with the principle owner stabbing the NASL in the back. According to some, the NASL commissioner is a habitual liar, every idea they have is dreadful and every little misstep is disastrous and proof they should pack up and go home. However, dare to point out that USL has had problems and continues to have them and you're some sort of Kool Aid-drinking league loyalist. I've followed lower division for as long as I've seriously followed US soccer, around 15 years now. In that time, the USL never bought a franchise to keep them going. They didn't care because if it folded, some other loser would be along to give them a few hundred grand for a franchise. It's not some sort of assumption, it's a fact. The NASL has higher standards, as mandated by the USSF. The D3 standards are that you need 8 teams, 75% in the US and a principle owner of 10m net worth. More than we have but by the standards of rich people, not very much at all.
I'm sorry, and I'm guessing if USL gets into Vegas that was also a market NASL had claimed because that commissioner leaked that NASL was "looking into it" and so USL should simply stay away ... that's crazy, but keep that storyline going. USL didn't screw NASL on OKC ... an owner did. And before you say that owner is trash ... wasn't he good enough for NASL right up until he picked the other group? I have yet to say USL hasn't had any problems. And they likely will continue to have them (expansion often leads to it). I'm wondering if USL starts meeeting the D2 standards you'll still trumpet those as some sort of proof that NASL has higher standards ... or if the "reasoning" will change. I've also never said they didn't have higher standards ... unless you can find somewhere that I did (good luck with that). So now USL not buying VSI and having the league "run" it is a bad thing? Damn, tough crowd. I'm pretty sure they don't just ditch groups ... Charlotte Eagles and Dayton Dutch Lions have found a home withing USL ... and are pretty content to be there ... USL didn't really turn their backs on them. Sometimes ... maybe the league owning the operation isn't the best thing ... it remains to be seen if it's the smart move in Atlanta ... I guess NASL is doing a solid for the fans by keeping them there? Is that the moral high ground you're standing on? Will that last or will the NASL move them? That would be really nice for those fans. I'm assuming the fans (or a few front office people) are the ones NASL is "caring" for when making the decision to run the team ... can't really figure out who else they're doing it for on your high ground there. Either way, like others have said ... wrong forum!
As Keane said, there was no statistical correlation with the small LAG2 team in regard to higher or lower attendance when the MSLUSL team played away. At the end of the year we may have better numbers to talk about one way or another, I am sure Kenn will write a blog about it.
There are D3 standards, so now USLPRO at least have to meet those (ownership capital, etc.) and they say they want to meet D2 standards, we will see. To be fair, OKC and VC not playing a single game is actually good, better that the old ways of play 1 year and be gone. The high D2 standards actually worked out to keep 2 teams that would have ended up folding anyways. My fear is that NASL will be so desperate for a West coast team that they will award an expansion spot to a Virginia type ownership group and may end up holding their dicks once again.
I know I have multiple neighbors worth that much, and I do not live in a especially rich neighborhood.
Did you even read the post? You've honed in on one sentence yet failed to grasp it's meaning. The point of bringing up VSI and Phoenix was to show that it's better not to let a club take the field than to let a bad club take the field and fold. We're not talking about league-owned teams, we're not talking about contraction; we're talking about whether the failures of OKC and Virginia necessarily say anything negative about the league. My point is that rather than saying something negative, it says something positive--that the league identified a problem and chose not to move forward because of it. But what I don't understand is this: for all your consternation, you somehow seem to think it's unreasonable to hold USL responsible for their haphazard expansion strategy--of which VSI and Phoenix are only the most recent in a long line of cases. In both, USL allowed unprepared ownership groups with minimal infrastructure to field teams they could not sustain in exchange for an expansion fee. Then when those groups had tapped themselves out, the league found new people to pay them the annual franchising fee for those organizations. Forgive me for not seeing that as a particularly sound or responsible way to promote or build the sport of soccer in the US. It's good for USL's ownership, but its bad for those markets in the long term. I'm glad that places like Charlotte and Phoenix still have high-caliber soccer with strong new ownership groups who look like they'll be able to keep things on track, but that doesn't negate the deleterious effects of either the USL or NASL's previous expansion strategies have had on US soccer. The point is that in refusing to let unprepared teams take the field, NASL is at least showing a level of growth and responsibility we haven't really seen before.
If USL get into Vegas first, it's because they've done years of work. However, it has fairly obviously been USL's tactic in the Nurock era to rush into the markets which NASL has to be in due to D2 rules, such as Phoenix and OKC. This is less of an issue with the 750K metro area rule being relaxed, now it's just 75% of markets. However, VSI and the Puerto Rico teams were pretty obviously attempts at hurting the NASL which both spectacularly backfired. The Tim McLaughlin situation is simple; whilst Lund decided to wait a year, the USL side got into the market first and he decided to hook up with them. I'm not saying he's a bad owner or even a bad person but it screws the league to lose another >750K market. I'm not talking necessarily about the Nurock era. Pre-split, there were promising teams with decent local support and even some political pull that went to the wall because all the USL cared about was franchise fees. How about Syracuse? In an unsuitable and expensive baseball stadium, having random games switched to Liverpool or even 30 miles away to Cortland, they still drew fantastic crowds. The owners were undercapitalised but, even then, the city were willing to partner over a new stadium. What happened? It fell apart. Now, the NASL would have bought that team and saved a salvageable situation. What would have happened to Minnesota if they'd been in the NASL? It would be the now-defunct NSC Minnesota Stars and the Vikings would be trying to get an MLS in their new stadium. There's no moral high ground here, there's just a difference between a league trying to do the greater good and a cabal just willing to collect franchise fees. If the USL has "changed", why don't they turn the ownership over to the teams that play in it?
Couldn't agree with you more on the last sentence ... but the "greater good" comment is a bit hollow IMO. NASL needed Minnesota as a market to keep league numbers up ... same as Atlanta. There is no "greater good" coming out of Atlanta, it's NASL trying to keep their total numbers up for this season (and maybe next). Soccer in Atlanta would still go on in 2017 with or without the 2015 Silverbacks.
The question is, though, would NASL have swooped in and saved Minnesota if they didn't need to keep their numbers up. If/when NASL gets to the point where it doesn't have to worry about meeting USSF's team count requirements, it'll be interesting to see if they will keep a team afloat, or if they'll let it go under.
I think it would be situational. Sometimes it is good for business to keep certain teams alive, while other teams not so much. Keep Atlanta alive in Atlanta after the 2016 season would be a terrible idea. Better to move them to Birmingham or New Orleans, if they don't move them West Coast first.
I understand why it would be BAD business to keep Atlanta past 2016 ... but what's GOOD about keeping it now? Outside of keeping another team in NASL? No matter what, you're not going to get someone to invest in THAT market ... and moving them to another market is the exact same as starting an expansion in that new market ... so what's "good" about it? I'm not saying it's a bad move, I just don't know the point.
While true, most teams that get to the point where the league would need to take over control of the team are in pretty bad straights.. Take Minnesota, prior to McGuire taking the team over, they were largely kept around because NASL needed 8 teams and there was no prospective new owners for the club. If NASL had more than 8 clubs, would Minnesota have been kept around? With no prospective owners and an attendance that had dropped off pretty severely from their historical 3k average, I'm not sure the answer to that question would have been yes.
Moving an established team is hardly the same as an expansion. Being established gives you more clout to get a stadium deal finished. It has the benefits of having players, coaches, staff(obviously not everyone will move), colors, name already in place. You don't have to go through all of that start up hassle. The good of keeping them now is as already said. Keeps the number of teams up. It gives the NASL team that they could possibly move out west if they can't establish a new team. It gives prospective owners in the area a team where they won't have to go through the hassle of a start up franchise. Like I said, it is situational.
Saving face probably. Dude said this. http://www.empireofsoccer.com/development-aspirations-expansion-33513/ It is good for the Atlanta fans IMO, and well you do not want the PR of a team folding, to me option C is the best [well not best but most probably] option, especially if it is a move to the West Coast.
Yeah, just read that, my first thought was, "Dude are you out of your mind?" There is no way that team stays there long term if it wants to survive. There is a reason most of the interest he talks about has to do with moving the team. Hopefully it was just PR fluff that has to be done to make fans feel better.
How does having an existing team in Atlanta help get a stadium deal finished in another market? I understand there are players, but most players aren't on multi year contracts anyways, so to me, that's very minimal. If you move the Silverbacks to a new market you think they're going to keep the name/colors? I agree with the good of keeping your numbers ... that's one thing ... but some are arguing that it's a reason the NASL should be patted on the back ... keeping them to keep your number of teams up isn't a reason to pat NASL on the back (IMO). Like I said, I hope the NASL doesn't have high hopes of an ownership group wanting them and keeping them in Atlanta ... but I guess it's possible.
Well it is what they have to say, you can't come out and say we are looking to relocate and then go and try to sell tickets to the Atlanta public. They could have just let the team fold, but they are buying themselves 2 years or so before they actually have to do something. The Silverback fans keep their team for a while longer and the league does not have a team folding.
Most likely because they are already established? If you owned a stadium who are you more likely to take seriously? The person who owns the Silverbacks or the person who doesn't own an NASL team but wants to?
But a person doesn't own the Silverbacks. The League does. You're still going to get an owner who hasn't owned an NASL team! Are you going to want a tainted Silverbacks team who didn't work in Atlanta ... or market a new franchise who hasn't failed yet?
The Sports Illustrated article about the start of the NASL season says talks with the LA investors have ended unsuccessfully