I've spent pretty much my entire adult life in North Carolina. I spent a year of high school in Charlotte, and have lived post-college in Raleigh-Durham. The one thing missing from North Carolina is ownership. There's a reason that beautiful 7,200 seat SSS SAS Stadium has existed three years with an A-League team taking root. There's a reason that the Charlotte Eagles and Carolina Dynamo have both dropped down to the PDL. The PSL Wilmington Hammerheads are the only professional team left in North Carolina. SAS was willing to buy the Carolina Courage from Time-Warner before the WUSA suspended operations, but it's a long way from the 1-2 million/year in losses at the WUSA level to the investment needed to fund an MLS franchise. I would absolutely love to have an MLS club closer to me than the 4 hour trip to RFK Stadium, but I just don't see anyone in North Carolina with the resources and desire to buy in to MLS. Especially considering the lack of suitable sized venues in the state.
i lived in north carolina all my life too before moving to atlanta last year. i think the triad area would be great for soccer especially with all the sucess that uncg and wake forest have had in soccer. i dont think that area will ever get a team because a baseball stadium was being worked on to lure the minnisota twins and it got rejected so they prob wont build a sss in that area. charlotte even rejected a minor league baseball stadium and i dont even think that thye have room for a sss. north carolina if granted a chance would have a sucessful team. the lack of a stadium and io is definatly a problem and like everywhere else, get a io and a stadium and welcome to mls. i was just stating that the south has a huge participation level and that the southeast region should be granted a team sometime during expansion. where? i dont know because the area is very spread out and right now no where in the southeast seems to even have their ******** together. one day, someday, they will until then the southeast can only wish for a team closer to home
Whats the best future for MLS? a) Smaller markets with histor and/or exclusive interest in Soccer? - vs - b) Strategically located large TV markets with some interest but other big sports as well? (btw - a=SaltLake and b=LAChivas) Any city would need its own SSS and a committed owner a) Rochester, RTP (or Charlotte) North Carolina b) Philly, St Louis, Texas, Florida, Pacific NW c) Filler - Another NYC team? Stategically, Philly and St Louis and Pacific NW are keys - They form natural rivalries with Wash/Philly/NY/Boston in the East and KC/SL/Chi/Col in the Midwest Cities to avoid Cleveland, Cincy - too close to an already small market team in Columbus Atlanta, New Orleans - Sorry but no history of Soccer interest Consider Moving From These Cities Colorado, KC - very weak in market and attendance - KC seems very unlikely though given the owners interest
I'm not gonna do the dick joke and make a sarcastic remark about the meaninglessness of participation as a factor in building a successful franchise. I'll just point out that THE SOUTHEAST ISN'T A MARKET. IT'S A REGION.
but there is a regional idenity. before the devil rays and marlins, the braves had a huge regional presence over the whole southeast (tbs showing every game). the humidity makes it a tough sell as a summer sport and air-conditioned domed SSS's would be expensive. hasn't MLS on several occasions stated Houston and Philly as the markets it "needs" to be in my opinion: 2 regions right now need a team. pacific northwest and the southeast. seattle is my pick over portland cause seattle is going to happen within 10 years IMO either way. but portland without baseball could work like Columbus and now maybe Salt Lake. for the southeast, there's no clear best candidate. that's one of the reasons it's not happening anytime soon. ownership doesn't have to be local and can come out of nowhere (Checketts). I think Raleigh could work but Charlotte is unfortunately too big of a commute right now to help much. Florida teams never had good investors and if you compare their attendance/success with a few other markets now doing well (stadiums), they weren't a collossal failure. Miami is a huge market with potential fans. Atlanta and Tampa do well with SUCCESSFUL teams. Atlanta and NO don't have much soccer tradition, but overall Atlanta is the best bet as a choice for a "NEEDS/HAS TO BE" city. It's a 4 sport city right now. It has a regional connection to most every southern state, something NC and FL don't have. so my 2 main choices are Seattle (OR PORTLAND) and Atlanta (OR any SE city). next tier on my list is Houston and Philly. Definitely would help in the future for a TV deal. SA could work really well, but I can't reason to list it as a must. Detroit and Miami are probably the largest markets I'm leaving off. Looking forward 20-30 years, I'm not sure Detroit is a must the way Houston and likely Philly are. Sure, don't expand without I/O's and stadiums. But looking forward long term, I'd make sure there are space for these 4. I hope the TV money will eventually be there. Geographic footprint. Eventually I think at least 1 Florida team will need to be in. Until domed SSS's are possible, maybe it will have to wait. but remember this topic isn't 2006 expansion. obviously rochester, toronto, san antonio all seem lined up to potentially be viable within a few years. But I don't see MLS not reaching its potential if these markets don't happen. MY LIST: Seattle (OR Portland), Atlanta (OR Florida, NC), Houston, Philly haven't read anything to convince me another market belongs on this list. maybe I could be convinced about Detroit, St. Louis, etc. No Columbus and I list Detroit. Same for St. Louis/KC. My basis - geographic footpring & TV markets. remember title of thread - "HAS"
Actually it is financially related. Look at some of the NHL team salary figures. The Canadian based teams tend to be not be able to have as high of a team salary as the American based teams because they take revenue in as Canadian money and then pay the players out in American money. The exhange rate is something like (American$1 to Canadian $1.5??) now where you lose a LOT of money in this exchange process if you are intaking Canadian. An example of a negative effect like this would be the NHL's Edmonton Oilers. They repeatedley find themselves trading away emerging players who will soon become high priced and or players who have already become high priced because they will not be able to or can not afford them already. I believe that this is a very effective strategy, a lot more effective than just letting the players play out their contracts and losing them to high spending American teams (NY Rangers) who are willing to pay them whatever. No team would ever leave a market they are make a satisfying profit in unless they have an absolutely below standard stadium or have a fan support rating low enough to the point where they are not making a profit, at which point they would not be making a satisfiable profit. The Expos were a financial disaster and were moved. The Vancouver Grizzlies and Winnipeg Jets may have been slightly diferent situations, but I am sure they were financially motivated as well. It is appears to me as if Toronto is the only Canadian market that has the means AND interest in American first division leagues to keep a team afloat and profitable.
Doesn't seem like anyone's taking in account what MLS SAYS and what MLS DOES. They NEED to be in Philly and Houston but they go to SLC and get a team with a crap name in a football stadium. We can't guess or even speculate where the next MLS franchises will be from, it's dependent on one thing, money. Who got it and where do they want to put a team. I just wouldn't be suprised if the next franchise was Louisville or Las Vegas (if MLS plays in Vegas, do the match results stay in Vegas?).
but that's not the point of this thread. there are several others active in the forum about where MLS will go. this thread is about looking forward to the "final" MLS and thinking about any markets that HAVE to be included EVENTUALLY.
So why are these cities a "must have"? Why are Philly and St. Louis higher up on the list then Portland or Seattle? St. Louis has a history of soccer participation and strong amateaur teams, but not really of supporting professional soccer. Their NASL team relocated to California and they had 3 different indoor teams (Steamers 1, Storm, Ambush) fold. And then with your second list you have San Antonio, which would bring a 3rd team in Texas. Why 3 teams in Texas and no teams in the southeast region of the country?
Based on what? 10-11k game? That would be the laughing stock of MLS. Trust me. I know. KC now draws 14-15k/game and still gets ridiculed.
Guys... If we're strictly talking geography (which it looks like we are), then the Twin Cities has to be included. After all, we've got a team in each of the Big Four - of non-MLS cities, only Miami, Detroit, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Atlanta join MSP on that list.
[/QUOTE]The only cities that MLS "HAS" to be in are cities that have committed, financially stable ownership with competent sports management/marketing staff, a stadium that either the team owns or is a majority tenant with favorable control over revenue streams and event scheduling and with a fanbase that is willing to watch their team potentially suck. That's all, that's it, close this 3rd world thread NOW.[/QUOTE] This thread should have stopped after this post as it is 100% correct. We can talk all about which cities "HAVE" to be in MLS, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter what the demographics or population of a region are unless they have a financially stable ownership group and stadium deal. If Toronto comes up with this, trust me they're in. If Rochester can prove this is the situation, they're in. We can talk about Philly, Detroit, and St. Louis (etc.) but they have none of the requirement's of Mike's post currently in place. We can stop talking about them until they do.
The only city I think MLS has to move to is Philly. I think the east needs another team along the eastern coast to help rivalries grow. In addition the area has a large soccer following. That being said I don't want to see a rushed expansion there that creates something stupid.
So every thread should be the same, where'll MLS be in 2006-7 topic? We must be practical and realistic about the short-term? Where's the fun in not being able to discuss long-term goals for the league. One can argue that MLS has to be in Philly without saying MLS should put a team there in the next year or two. The smaller markets with all 4 sports are a mixed bag to me. Proven sports cities but also with baseball competition. I also look to long-term population growth. Minnesota and Detroit are concerns. Weather is a concern for Phoenix and Miami and this summer league. I've never heard of a pro team considering Phoenix. I haven't lived there so I don't know how tough it'd be, but I'm a little surprised some MFL team hasn't expressed interest there. Tampa-Orlando is also something of a 4 sport area. Minnesota would be fine but it just doesn't seem to strike many as a great TV market or vital to the "geographic footprint". I think we can agree that TV markets and "geographic footprint" aren't the current deciding factors for who gets a team (it's I/O's and SSS's), but I still think there's a place here for a discussion about the long-term importance in this topic if the sport is eventually to rival the "big 4" in stature and compete with the top Europen leagues for players. Let us look past the next 10 years.
I agree with Philly, I don't see why these non New Yorkers think New York City has to have a team. Where do you think this NYC team is going to play??
I happen to agree with you on this as well. There's no harm in it. It's just that the MLS brass doesn't seem to share our beliefs. They had a huge list of potential cities to expand to this past round. They chose to put a 2nd team in LA and one in a medium sized market? Why? Stable ownership groups. It shouldn't surprise anybody if in the next round of expansion wealthy Mexican owners buy teams and put them in Chicago and New York. The priorities we have for the league are not the same as those in charge of the matter.
HUGE-MARKET-MLS-REALLY-NEEDS-IN: Philadelphia Houston ALMOST-NEED-TO-BE-IN-FOR-GEOGRAPHIC-REASONS: Seattle or maybe Portland (need a NW presence) Florida somewhere - Miami but really in Miami? (need a SE presence) OTHER-TEAMS-I'D-LIKE-TO-SEE-IN-A-"FINALIZED"-MLS The other one between Seattle/Portland St. Louis - soccer hotbed Queens - actually in NY, good rivalry with Jersey Detroit/Twin Cities - either one is fine, or who knows one day both - get a better north-central presence w/o going to Canada Carolina somewhere TEAM MLS MAY ADD B/C THEY EXPECT THEM TO DO WELL: Rochester San Antonio AVOID: Atlanta New Orleans To sum up: I'd like to see a 22 or 24-team MLS in the end. Seems like you need that many teams to get a good "geographic footprint" and give most of the country a reason to follow soccer. Of course, that's a ways down the road, and right now the two "must-have" markets that would do the most for MLS "credibility" are Philly and Houston.
1. Florida has been tried and failed. 2. You mention Atlanta...do you realize it's a much longer drive for me to Atlanta than to DC? That's also true for the Triad, another population center that you probably think of as part of the Southeast "market." I suspect New Orleans is closer to Houston than Atlanta. Miami, part of the Southeast "market," is a massive drive to Atlanta. 3. As much as I wish it weren't so, I don't see anywhere in NC as a viable market. I think there's an outside chance that a Triad team could succeed, based on drawing 2000 from Charlotte, 1000 from the Triangle, and 15,000 locally. Like Columbus before the Blue Jackets, that club would be the region's calling card as "Major League." I won't bore you with the story, but recent history makes it unlikely the Triad would kick in more than minimal aid to a franchise, so I just don't see it.
Tampa Bay - league owned team. Not sure that counts. Miami - undercapitalized owner (this is a warning to those clamoring to see MLS give Frank DuRoss the keys to an MLS team) who ran out of cash mostly because his obligations to pay his share of the costs of operating the three league owned teams, and not his own incompetence in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area. If Ted Turner were interested, there'd be an MLS team in Atlanta in 2006. I think any of the three major MSAs (Charlotte, the Triad, the Triangle) would be viable if done right. I just don't see any ownership. A good start would be to see a successful A-League team in the state. I've really enjoyed being out at SAS Stadium again for the ACC and NCAA college tourneys.
Andy, about Atlanta...I was just reiterating my point that Atlanta has to beat out Philly and Seattle on its own, not as part of a "market" stretching from New Orleans to Miami to Greensboro to Louisville.
1. Failed no less than SJ, Dallas, Denver. Never had good ownership/stadium situations. 2. My dad is from NC. I lived there 4 years. I think people relate more with Atlanta than Washington, DC. I'm talking about regional identity, not attendance in my posts. How many travel from SF to SJ? Baltimore to DC? I'm not talking at all about boosting attendance. 3. I don't see a NC SSS now either. And the Hurricanes have been disappointing. I'm talking long term. I doubt the Triangle could be a great market NOW. Not sure about Charlotte. But long term, the SE should have a team IMO, but there aren't great choices right now. So by default, I have to mention NC.