Garber reveals that Miami will start play in 2010 if chosen

Well good to see Garber not flinching at being given a deadline. Though I don't have a problem with them playing in 2010, I'm not excited about losing two players to expansion that year.

 

Wow.

That's a short time limit if they get a team.

At this point I was betting they would, but all kidding and Miami poster entertainment aside, they better be going full force from the first minute.

A lot of logistics for under a year to prepare.

 

it could be argued (although maybe not all that well) that they're just as ready (if not more so) than Philly is at this point.

 

Although I think it's great for Miami and their fans to get that opportunity to start so soon, a part of me is really annoyed about the way they got to (kinda) skirt around the SSS issue. Especially with all the grief other city's bids have gotten over the last couple years concerning funding for an SSS being an integral part.

But hey, more domestic footy is always good and hopefully Miami will stick this time.

 

Again this is if they are awarded a team. Miami is not in yet folks.

 

Dismaying if this occurs. It smacks of circa 2002-style panic by the league.

How long before the first Barka-Miami coach pulls a Gullit?

 

I see this as good news, actually. It makes selecting Miami that much more of a risk, making it less likely they'll actually be selected.

 

You mean like San Jose skirted around the SSS that they are never going to build.

 

You mean Seattle? Or are you just a troll?

 

The sooner they start, the sooner they can fail and the sooner we can move on.

 

I seriously doubt Garber would bother mentioning they're potential entry year if they weren't being picked for one of the slots.

I think Claure's money is what separates Barca-Miami from the Fusion. Everyone wants to think about Barcelona, but they will only have major impact on the team that's on the field. Claure is the businessman that is backing the bid, and a great businessman at that.

 

Claure and his fat wallet, especially in this craptacular economy we're in, will seal the deal on this.

 

I post this comment in so many threads that I should change my screen name to "SSS is BS" -- but the SSS issue is a false-front. It is meaningless. Of the last few expansion teams: Chivas USA no SSS; RSL no SSS; San Jose no SSS; and Seattle no SSS. Only Toronto and Philly have had them.

It is a non-issue, a red-herring. If teams can get deals in stadiums where they get the revenue or can make a go of it financially, and if they have very deep-pocketed owners committed to the game and the league, then SSS is virtually meaningless.

It seems likely to me that Miami and Vancouver will be the next two cities chosen for expansion, further proving my point.

 

The fact that you had to spend so much time explaining why these teams don't, or didn't, have their own SSS when they were added to the league says volumes, I think.

 

You will need to support this viewpoint with more than your own stupidity.

 

I guess paragraphs consisting of more than a few sentences are quite tricky, yes. Everything that's happened to MLS teams should be expressed in a few words. If this isn't possible it obviously means that everything is AWFUL and BAD.

I think PhillyMLS should just use Smilies to make his point next time.

Seattle Sounders SSS -

D.C. United SSS -

 

Repped and totally correct. The league simply cannot improve and grow effectively until all (or at least virtually all) teams are in venues where they control the revenue and scheduling. That doesn't mean that every team has to be in a stadium purpose built for soccer, but being a tenent answering to someone with no interest in MLS won't fly.

Also, using CUSA and RSL as examples to prove an expansion philosophy doesn't make much sense. At that point in time, MLS needed investors with money and certainly wasn't focusing on stadium plans. Things are far different today.

 

We knew that less than a week after the bid was submitted. Miami will get all ticket sale revenue(which they will then share with the league like everyone else), all concession, luxury suite, club seat and game day advertising revenues, and half of the revenue from stadium naming rights and non-MLS soccer events. The lease was signed, if not before, then right after the bid was official, and is for 3 years with two additional option years.

The ownership group and city officials have expressed the intent to build a SSS, but nothing beyond that just yet. A major factor in that is Friday's vote on the new Marlins ballpark. The city is contributing the majority of the $500 million+ in funding for that stadium, so convincing them to commit to another facility probably wouldn't be too successful right now.

Claure/FCB have a good lease at FIU, and if they get the team, they'll be able to operate fairly comfortably there. The plan is to begin serious SSS discussions and planning during the deal at FIU, and at worst, begin play at a new stadium after the last year of the lease.

This is only the second time I've heard the league comment on the 2010 thing. The first was something along the lines of "...if it makes sense, we'll seriously consider it." Now this confirmation that if Miami is in, it will be 2010, is what I've been saying all along. You'd be a massive bonehead to force any Miami team to sit around a do nothing for a year while there is a perfectly good stadium already standing. They want to start selling tickets and merchandise as soon as possible.

There is plenty of time to get the team up and running in time if it is awarded. I'm a graphic designer, and coming up with a visual identity for the team shouldn't take more than a few months, 5-6 tops. As Seattle has demonstrated, the majority of player and staff signings can be done after the season(and most have to be). The logistics of setting the team up is not something Miami needs to worry about. What we need is to have good showings at the upcoming MLS exhibitions in the area to shake the fan support worries.

 

Generally, Bob, I find your posts pretty good. But I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this. MLS still needs billionaires. This isn't about people loving soccer, it's about people having the financial wherewithal to carry an investment at a loss for many years in an effort to build something over a very, very long term.

As proof I would offer the commissioners continued comments about the St. Louis group. If stadium plans were more important than pocket money, that group would have been approved with the stadium approval a couple years ago.

Instead we are talking about Miami and Vancouver possibly being the front-runners at this point. Why? Because Greg Kerfoot and Marcelo Claure are both worth more than $1 billion.

Mr. Claure could lose a few hundred thousands dollars at FIU every year for hundreds of years before his personal fortune was expended. I'm not saying he will, or that FIU is the long-term solution (there is still the possibility of an SSS at the Orange Bowl site over the longer-term). What I'm saying is that, to the league, it's much more important to have multi-millionaires and billionaires in the club than it is to have an SSS.

 

It looks like MLS will have two new teams next year. I know there are those that think it still may not happen. I am not a betting man but if I was, I wouldn't bet against it.

 

Yes, sitting around doing nothing for a year would be stupid.

On the other hand, taking an extra year to build a season ticket base, promote the team, secure corporate sponsorships, cultivate local media relationships, secure local TV contracts, hire prime coaching and management talent, and generally make sure the team is launched right would make sense. You only get one chance to launch a new team.

But hey, just because that's the way every other expansion team in the history of forever has done it doesn't mean Miami has to. They're special, or something.

 

Huh? Where did I say that well heeled owners isn't important? I'd agree that that is a huge factor in determining the teams. That doesn't mean that another big factor isn't having venue control (both in revenue and scheduling).

The fact is that MLS won't be able to grow if teams are playing in rented stadiums they don't control -- it doesn't matter if an owner is fabulously wealthy, nobody is going to lose money year after year in an investment unless there is a payoff in the end. Having a venue where you control the revenue is critical for profitability of an individual club -- that's why it's a key part of any bid. It's certainly not the only factor, but it's clearly one of them.

Having well capitalized owners is important because they can offer cash flow and not be scared way by a economic downturn in the league if revenues dry up. They can weather the storm. But nobody is joining the league --rich or not -- and sticking around if they are losing money constantly forever. Rich people don't become rich by making poor investments. And none of the people looking to join the league are doing it out of beneficence or a desire to promote soccer in the US -- it's all about the money to be made.