Expansion USL1 2008

At the moment, it looks very likely that Seattle will join MLS in 2009. There are restrictions that keep any other Canadian team from joining MLS until 2010. The Montreal owner has waffled on whether he wants to join MLS or not. Last word I heard is that he's considering it.

MLS is looking at Montreal and Vancouver. But Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cleveland, Las Vegas, and a number of other cities (many of them without USL-1 teams) are being looked at as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens with USL-1. I think it has a vital role in pro US soccer, and it's important that it survive and thrive. Here's hoping that MLS and the USL can work together to keep things improving.

 

It seems like you do one of these lists every few weeks. Stop already.

 

Fresno, may make the jump to USL-1 someday, but, plan on smoke for the forseeable future.

 

I think the city of St Louis will be in the MLS for sure in 09...

www.stlouisssoccerunited.com

 

If Seattle got an MLS team, would Tacoma really be a viable option for a USL-1 team?

As an outsider, they would seem a little too close. But I'd be curious to know what the locals up there have to say. You guys would obviously know better.

And if Tacoma is too close, is there another market in the Northwest that could support a USL-1 team? Yakima? Boise?

 

Olympia?

 

---

 

This may not be entirely related, but this thread brought this to my mind. Given that Cleveland City is a nonprofit with it's own sustainable fan base and a stadium a good distance from where the MLS team would play, would MLS expanding to Cleveland necessarily preclude City continuing operations?

 

I think Cleveland City would still exist because they are USL-2nd. If they wanted to promote themselves and build a new stadium for this existing club and put in a claim for an MLS spot then that's possible as well. I think the City club will still be around.

 

Living in Olympia..... I'd love it but there is nowhere to play. The two major colleges in the area do not have stadiums. Tacoma could work if it was marketed much better than the Seattle version of USL is/was. The Tacoma Stars did very well attendance wise. The Tacoma Dome could be used I suppose but an outdoor facility would be much better. I'd love to see the Tide move from PDL to USL1. Green Grass and High Tides forever!

 

Probably but Boise, Spokane and Victoria (per another thread) are the best of the lot. There are only about 225k people in and around Yakima and travel to and from there would suck for a continental league like USL-1. Salem is the other borderline possibility (380k in the metro area) but it is close like Tacoma is close. There are about half-a-dozen other metro areas around the 100k to 150k mark.

Thinking West Coast in general - Sacramento is probably the most prime (despite the disaster of the Geckos a decade ago) and has rarely been part of anyone's MLS expansion discussions. Don't the Knights already draw quite well for an NPSL team? Then places like Fresno, Stockton, Bakersfield and Reno.

But this is just list-making. Aside from Victoria, after all, none of those places have potential ownership groups talking about them.

 

I'm not a native Washingtonian, but i lived there for a couple of years (Puyallup). I'd like to see it happen, but i don't think it will. Most Tacoma fans are so use to supporting Seattle based teams that i don't think it'd draw too well. It's really like one city (Sea-Tac).

However, I think it might be perfect for USL2...as well as Boise, Calgary, Victoria, Edmonton, and possibly Yakima, Everett, Vancouver (WA), Salem, Eugene, or Spokane. Olympia is too small.

 

I'm not sure if you have given much thought to Fresno Fuego. But Fuego F.C. has near future aspirations of USL-1 and eventually MLS.

This transgression takes time, support of the community and a lot of reserves. It has been implemented in our business plan ahead but we will not move forward until the board feels ready.

We have learned to become patient with this venture and time can only prepare us more to be a succesful franchise at the next level.

 

IF the USL and MLS intend to expand, the rules on foreign players will have to be altered or else the talent pool will be diluted.

 

Thanks, for believing in Fuego...but,

When you say forseeable smoke in the future; Does that mean the fire will eventually go out of Fuego?
And if so, I'm just curious... but, is your mentally that way because of what happened to San Jose Earthquakes?

If not, give me the reason to your comment...

 

I think "where there's smoke, there's fire" meaning, Fuego won't go USL 1 any time soon, but their is smoke, and it is probably a bit warm in the area.

Metaphorically speaking

 

After watching the USL1 Final, the pregame interview with the VP of USL seemed like he is very complacent. He didn't want to comment much on the Seattle Sounders other then he is uncertain of their status from 2008 on. He made the comment that he is very happy that the USL1 has 8 ownership groups that are dedicated to the league. With 12 teams currently he knows that Seattle is all but gone, and the Victory are uncertain for next season. I know that Miami FC has trouble with attendance, but from what I heard they are in it for the long run. If I was the USL1 I would be looking for growth, not being happy that we have 8 dedicated owners in a 12 team league and that by 2010 it is likely you will lose Portland, Montreal, and Puerto Rico. Their current fan bases are deserving of an MLS club rather then rewarding a city that is on the bottom end of the USL in attendance. Championships are nice, but putting butts in the seats provide revenue.

I hope for the sake of the USL1 they are looking for expansion opportunities, especially on the West Coast. It is going to be very hard on Portland and Vancouver playing all teams on the East Coast. The USL2 is all east coast and some of those teams are probably deserving of USL1 status, but it looks like some the West Coast PDL markets need to be analyzed and see if they are capable of USL 1.

 

Because of the lack of westcoast owners willing to set up shop in Division 2. They either wanna go hard (USL1) or go home (PDL). Also, because of the fact that D2 is all east coast, any west coast owner will be discouraged from joining USL2 just because they'd be the only one there.

 

Its always about the money.

USL can want to set up shop all over the country, but you've got to have a potential owner, with access to a facility, to make it happen.

So if you know somebody who wants to own a team, has access to a facility, I'm sure the USL would do whatever it takes to accomodate you.

 

I think the fact that the PDL is amateur is another problem. Owners are not having to pay salaries so there is no incentive for them to move up to USL 1 or USL 2. If you look at attendance numbers in the PDL there are a few markets that come to mind that could possibly sustain a move up. (ie: Des Moines & Fresno)

 

I think they have got a few viable options, but they did not prepare for what was coming with the Vickies and Seattle. Its possible that there will be a 10 team USL1 next season.