So apparenlty Pele is in talks w/ MLS to try and resurrect the NY Cosmos. So would it be fitting to have Pele as an MLS investor, or should we stick with our other 7 possible expansion sites? There is also mention that Toronto is interested in joining MLS. What are thoughts on that? http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=257417&cc=5901
First I've seen on Toronto. I makes more sense than Houston though. WHo would want to play Summer game in Houston?
Toronto is in another country. How does it make more sense than the largest city in Texas? Let the Canadians start their own league.
I voted for Oklahoma, because I think that's where the best chance to succeed is. It follows the Columbus model. Large urban areas that grew up too late to land major league teams. No competition from the big three pro sports, and a college-town tradition that means they know how to support a team. Toronto offers a problem that I don't think the league wants to get into. That is the difference in currency value between the Canadian dollar and the American dollar. It seems to be giving the NHL fits. Also, are there other leagues around the world that cross national borders? What would FIFA and CONCACAF think? I'd love to see a Cleveland team succeed. There is already a rivalry between central Ohio and Northeast Ohio. But it never gets played out on the pro sports field. It's about time. Also, it would be great to have a road game to go to at least twice a year. I'm sure the games in CCS would be sell-outs. Having said that, I'm skeptical about the Cleveland team's chance to make it. But that's already been discussed at length in other threads. When I saw "resurrection" in the subject line, I thought Miami and Tampa were going to be on the list. I think the league gave up on Miami too soon. Maybe another go would be warranted somewhere down the road. I won't say the same for Tampa.
I agree with CrewStadium227, in that a team in Toronto wouldn't make sense, considering the lesser value of the US Dollar there in Canada. I would like to see a team either in Philly or in Seattle.
Honestly I don't see how you can put a team in Toronto. The biggest problems would be: 1. The tax laws are different, and are supposedly harsher on pro athletes that in the US 2. What would an SI be? Would the team be made of Americans or Canadians? 3. This has only worked for hockey, since that is their sport. The MLB and NBA are stupid for putting teams across the border. The NFL sure as hell isn't going to. As for the Cosmos, I think it would be awesome to bring them back into existance. The history of the team and all that the name represents would be powerful. If Pele and his buddies became investors in MLS, I think there would be some benefits to that. This would also create the in-town rivalry NYC has been wanting(supposedly). I just don't see it working out for them to get in the door by this next round of expansion. I thought there were plans for 2004 and 2006. They could emerge in 2006 IMO. The way I see it, is there are two top contenders for entrance into each conference. OK vs. Seattle for the West, and Philly vs. Cleveland for the East. I'm not sure what all the stadium issues are, but I had the feeling that Seattle was going to put the team into the new Seahawks stadium. This is a big downer. I wonder when they'll make the formal announcement for expansion? The big factors, I think, come down to who the investors are, how much money they have, what kind of stadium plans do they have, and what the support network in the proposed area is.
Absolutely not Canada. Their idea is to get up an MLS team using Canadians in the same fashion that we use American players. And it would change the league fundamentally to have one team working from an entirely seperate pool of players. They want to do for their players what MLS has done for ours? Then start a friggin league of your own. As for this whole thing with Pele and the Cosmos, it's too idiotic to waste time discussing. As any Brazilian will tell you, he's just a loveable buffoon or, as Romario says "a retard" and he is talking out of his ass. He has no clue about how MLS works, and his financial "backers" (he has little dough of his own) are highly unlikely to buy into a Single Entity League. This subject is being earnestly discussed by idiot Metros fans and dipshit DC fans over on their board. I was very proud to think that Crew fans were smarter than to take this stupidity seriously.
So you honestly think it would be retarded to have a NY team named the Cosmos? Even if Pele doesn't have the money to do it, I think he has enough influence around the globe that he could inspire some people to rethink their oppinions of MLS if he were involved. Besides, if MLS were to put another team in NY, as has been mentioned before, what would be a more suitable name? At least the Cosmos has name recognition. And Pele honestly wouldn't even have to be involved at all, just the other guy that owns the rights to the name and such. I could care less about it, but I'm just saying that if MLS is insistant on having another NY team, then it should be called the Cosmos, regardless of who is involved in the ownership and financials. Thanks for clearing up how the Canadians want to structure the Toronto team... and yes, it's rediculous. I thought that Canada had tried to start a league several years ago. Did this never happen? Or did it fold already? I'm curious about the Philly proposal. I heard a long time back that they were going to have the stadium in Trenton, NJ instead of Philly proper. I wonder how that would affect the team's support?
Me too. We've already discussed how MLS might have thought MLS contraction would either have been San Jose or Miami. IMO, the things that killed Miami could have been changed. They had a horrible stadium situation (far out of miami) and a crappy investor. From what i've heard. If MLS wants to truly be a national league in the literal sense, they need to expand to the pacific NW. A team in Philadelphia would be great for rivals. But let's see how this friendly does before we have any press releases. A team in Cleveland. Before this latest round of talk, here's all I heard of Cleveland's MLS chances: list of cities...and once, and only once, Cleveland I didn't even hear about it firsthand until this most recent round. They don't have a stadium. The way I heard it Browns Stadium wouldn't even work, as there's some deal built into the lease that would be absoutely horrendous for MLS. With that said: 1) Portland/Seattle 2) Somewhere in Oklahoma 3) Philadelphia 4) Rochester although, I really don't like Oklahoma or Rochester. Don't know why.
You're somebody who is normally very rational and perceptive, so I'll take another whack at explaining what I think They can call them the BioWaste or the CrackHoes for all I care. But calling them the "Cosmos" isn't going to put Chinaglia, Cruyff and Beckenbauer out on the pitch and it really isn't going to accomplish much besides thrilling the handful of nerds that still wear Cosmos gear. As far as the league is concerned, maybe I'm just narrow minded, but it seems fairly obvious to me that we need teams in the Pacific Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, etc. a hell of a lot more than we need a second team in a town where there already is one. OK, this is where everybody loses me on this. I'm willing to be persuaded, but hear me out first: The economics of MLS are what they are. There is no big money either way. If the Crew suddenly started attracting 50,000 people a game it would change the overall league's financial position only marginally. The product on the field will not change, regardless of who the owner is - Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, Jesus Christ, they'd all be stuck putting a $1.7mm team on the field. In any case, suppose for some insane reason Pele was given his very own MLS team. So what? Are people going to race out to the park to see "the team Pele owns"? Will millions and millions of people suddenly want to watch an MLS game because Pele is sitting in the stands in a suit? I just don't think so, any more than having Michael Jordan as the owner of an NBA team puts a single butt in a seat. The product is still what it is, and people buy the product. The bottom line is that people who have $25 or 30mm to invest in an MLS team don't do it because it is a lousy financial investment. Period. And attaching some old 65 year old retired player's name to the deal does not change the equation in any substantive way. MLS is structured the way it is so that the league can grow and survive, not so that individual investors can turn a profit. And, not surprisingly, most investors are interested in turning a profit, not in forking over a huge pile of dough so that Pele, who has a reputation as a dumb guy, can have a little toy to play with in his dotage. As for the name, I don't have anything against it, it just won't do anything. Is there someone out there who has never heard of MLS? Is somebody sitting at home, refusing to go to MLS games, suddenly going to say "Well now that one of these teams is named "Cosmos" I'll buy a ticket?"
There are so many of these threads, and they all express the hopes, aspirations of prejudices of the posters, but in the end, MLS expansion teams depend on two and only two things: were an investor/operator with the $25 megabucks wants it, and where there's a suitable stadium. If Bill Gates agreed to spend $35 million building a 20,000 seat stadium and an additional $25 million on the expansion fee, MLS would cheerfully expand to Enid, Oklahoma. Sorry about the wet blanket, but there it is. Oh, and if the stadium issue could be worked out in this economy, Philadelphia would provide excellent support for an MLS team. There's my aspiration, hope and prejudice.
I wholely agree that this team would not live up to its history for many many years. I'm not trying to say they should rebuild a team of the caliber of the Cosmos, or sell it as that. The only thing I think it would truely add to our league is a bit of history. Not much else, so that is obviously no grounds on which to start a franchise. Agreed. I agree in part. Yes, I think that expanding the reach of the league geographically is more important now than putting a second team in NYC (but in the longterm scheme of things, I think this will happen eventually). I too feel the Pacific Northwest is a good place for one of these teams. I'm more hesitant on the Southwest, and I'm not sure where you have in mind when you say the Southeast. We've seen the problems with Florida. The only Southeast talk I've heard of in a long time was when that group wanted to move a team to Winston-Salem, NC. However, I haven't heard anything about that in some time. Do you have other places in mind Bill? Just out of curiousity Bill, what is it going to take to change the league's financial position more that just marginally? If 50,000 people on average were going to the games, there would be more sponsorship revenue, as well as TV dollars. Where else are they making significant income? Now, if you were saying up to 20,000 or maybe 25,000... I might still be willing to believe your statement. No, but Pele would probably do some adverts for the league. There would be more name-recognition with Pele in the soccer community in general than there is for, oh, Josh Wolff. MLS does a horrible job advertising their product as it is, but at least they haven't stooped to getting Billy Mays to do adverts for them yet (I hate that man). And Bill, having Michael Jordan as an owner/player does put a lot more butts in seats than normal. If he were only an owner it would be different, but since he plays, this example just doesn't work for you pal. But yeah, when people like Magic, Bird, Thomas came back to be coaches that didn't put butts in a seat, agreed, and neither would Pele being the owner. You would be amazed how many stupid people there are in the world with shakier logic than this, so I feel confident in saying there would be at least ONE person in the world that would do so. But that's just based on statistics really... there is always at least one. Thanks for the input Bill... always fun.
Let me just clarify: I was using the Crew drawing 50,000 as an example of ONE team drawing a ton of fans. The other half of the example is that the rest of the league stayed the same. Clearly you're right that if EVERY team started drawing 50,000 we'd be on our way.
After having spoke with a sports reporter who covers mls this weekend. He stated the 2 definates are Seattle and Philly, they have new stadiums(even though they are NFL) and they have owners ready to go(Laurie in Philly and someone related with microsoft in Seattle). He stated the league believes both cities have strong fanbases already in place and the league will have sweetheart stadium deals similar to KC/Hunt and NE/Kraft. They also like adding these cities because it gives them a team in all the top 8 markets in the country by adding Philly and Seattle is a nice size city that gives MLS a presence in the Northwest. They believe this will help their tv viability. After those cities, he thinks the others have to proove themselves to the league more. He stated the league likes OK and Rochester but still needs to be sold on them. He said they also are researching Atlanta, Houston, Minnesota, and Cleveland. He stated they have already decided on Seattle and Philly for 2005 and are looking at the rest for the next round.
Thanks Celsion, now if you go back to your source, could you maybe pin down where in Minnesota they are looking at? I've never heard anything specific about the whole Minnesota franchise. It's been pretty cryptic. I would assume it would be in the Twin cities somewhere. Thanks.
it was in the Minneapolis area. Also, he said it was not a coincidence that Seattle and Philly got games on the Man United tour this summer. They are looking at these games as a way to get soccer back in the public eye in these areas before they make the expansion announcement.
Everyone should have seen that Pele doesn't have a clue about MLS after he stated, "It would be great for Cosmos to see the team playing against the best sides from around the world."
I'm not seeing the connection between Man U tour and possible expansion. Neither Man U nor ChampionsWorld has any stake in MLS and may even stand to benefit if MLS were to fail. This theory also seems flawed when you consider that a good percentage of the Man U's target market are the very people who look down on MLS. Not trying to be argumentative here, but can you explain this further?
Slip is correct - MLS is pretty ticked about the ManU "Grab the Cash and Dash" tour this summer. They see it, probably correctly, as a flagrant grab for American dollars that might otherwise go to MLS teams, and diverting attention from their league, making them look small time by comparison. To claim that this is an MLS ploy is just so much nonsense. This clown is just another BS fraud. Nothing he says rings remotely true. Hell, the guy can't even come up with Paul Allen's name.
Why with all the talk of small stadiums would they then go to TWO 60k plus stadiums. It really makes no sense.
I'm just repeating what he told me. He has many inside sources at the league offices. Besides what did he say that probably isnt the truth? I think what he says is what most other people already assumed. MLS has worked with champions world to a degree on the Man U tour thats how those cities got in on it.