Confirmed: Spurs Sports & Entertainment in talks with USL

I believe the title was misleading to get people to start rejecting the idea of getting an USL soccer team in San Antonio.

The title says:
"S.A. could see soccer for price of a stadium"

Austin plays in a High School stadium
Kansas City (MLS) has played in a High School stadium (Overland Park, KS) and is playing in a AAA baseball stadium while they build their stadium

Then why can't a USL team playing in Alamo Stadium, a stadium with capacity for 23,000 people, more than some MLS stadiums.

Here's what the article says:
But Holt said operating a USL franchise in the city won't work without a team-controlled stadium seating 5,000 to 10,000. And to build such a venue, the bulk of the funding must come from taxpayers, a county official said.

1.- Holt didn't say that its required to have a stadium, as the title implies
2.- The county official is the one that starting talking about making taxpayer take the bill.

 

I guess we were typing at the same time.
Ok, I'll put that in the blog sometime.

 

I really do think the Alamo Dome could be ok for now, SA would be a great place for futbol. How far is Austin away from SA?

 

Be wary of the things that come out of the league. In no way am I saying Tim Holt is a bad guy, he's actually been quite helpful and supportive of us (the OSSC and the Ponce de Leon Cup group) so far. I'm just warning you that he tends to not say much that isn't vague. He has to, but it can be very frustrating.

Good luck bringing a team to SA. I'd heard the rumors a while back, but had to keep my mouth shut. Now that the cat is out the bag, I don't have to worry anymore.

 

There's also Alamo Stadium with capacity for 23,000 people
and I believe is being used by some high schools

 

Uhhhh... actually... depending on traffic

 

Jesus Christo I think there is more congestion and construction on El Camino Real, any day of the week, than there is in the nasal passages of a supermodel with allergies, who's in the middle of getting a nose job.

 

From Mysa: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Holt_upbeat_about_Spurs_bottom_line.html

So, maybe the USL is not coming to SA.

Still, the fact that the interest is out there....maybe a DC move in a year or two will align with a SSE interest in MLS.

 

Well, cool that this is finally out. I'd heard about this some time ago, but, as with others, preferred to keep quiet.

Hate the way it's being brought out, though. I was hopeful that the Aztex would have a nice Central Texas Derby down the line soon. But it looks like the Spurs have decided that they want their own stadium before they jump in.

I can understand. They're smart sports business people.

But it sure would be easier on us if we had a nearby team. And a good local rivalry would make it easier for them to sell getting a stadium.

That old damn chicken and egg question again.

 

No you mean that damn beuracratic, red tape ,anti-soccer, bullsh!t again. Thats all it is.

SA is the third largest city in Tejas, has more USL-1 level stadiums than Travis county combined.

And WTF is this about tax payer money being needed and sh!t like that. WTF do they whanna build a second Maracana?? I'm pretty sure that "if" they weren't such a bunch of mimzy suits that Spurs inc. could build a 5-10k seater stadium on a whim.

 

Lots of ways to look at the numbers. Sports teams always say they're not earning any money. Obviously not true. But if the Forbes link I found means anything, it looks like they earned around $20 million a year over the past five years (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). ...and that's the best they've done. The previous 5 years they were running break-even or negative.

Wakemed Park, the Carolina RailHawks stadium that various Aztex staffers keep citing as an ideal stadium, cost 14.5 million to build... but that includes a few fields around it.

Basically, for a small, pretty nice soccer stadium, you're probably looking at $10 million. As you can see, the Spurs probably don't have that just lying around to drop. With this economy, they (like everyone else) will have a hard time saying how this season or next will fare, let alone the amount of time down the line they'd like to be able to predict before sinking $10 million into a stadium.

That doesn't take into considering any improvements that would almost certainly have to be made around wherever they built. Which are city functions.

Not sure I'm successfully arguing it here. It may still look to you like the Spurs could afford to do it themselves. But I don't really see that in the numbers. Partly because I don't really understand the numbers. Partly because the numbers are always mushy. And partly because I expect the Spurs owners would like to have a decent cushion for when they aren't championship favorites like they have been the past decade. And that time looks to be hitting starting this year.

I'm eager to have them in the league. I'm sad that they think they require a stadium. Heck, Blossom, as far as I know, still has a good soccer stadium. And it's actually real soccer width, as opposed to football width.

But the Spurs have successfully soaked San Antonio for an arena, so I'm sure they know how to make the politics work. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up with one sooner than us.

 

...and, no, I don't mean that. It's a heck of a lot of money to gamble that a soccer stadium will work financially.

In the past 10 years, we've seen many places taking that gamble for the first time. So far, they've all pretty much paid off. There are some that would argue that the stadium in Frisco is not paying off, but with the concerts they hold there, the stadium is making money. It may look crappy for the Hoops, but it seems to, so far, have been worth the expense. Besides, the local school district needed a new stadium.

The only one that's borderline right now that I know of is Rochester. Hopefully they've cleared the last hurdle on getting the luxury suites finished and things will turn around up there.

Upshot -- there have been 15 stadiums built with soccer in mind as the primary tennant in the past 10 years. One has failed as far as a team goes -- Atlanta's. I don't recall how much, if anything, the local governments put into that. Atlanta aside, top level soccer has had more stadiums built that any other pro sports league. By a LONG shot. (Granted, Jones Dome probably cost as much as all the soccer stadiums combined, but that's an aside)

That's a very impressive indication of SUPPORT for soccer, despite the sport's history of failure in the US.

As to San Antonio and the Spurs, well, I'll do what I can to talk my family members down there to do their thing. But by brother's Libertarian. I don't think I'm going to have any luck.

 

Is it me
or that's in reference to Alamo Stadium?

 

I assumed that to mean that maybe a school district would want a new stadium that SSE could partner with, a la UTSA with Northside ISD.