This group is becoming a laughing stock. I can't believe they have the gaul to ask people to buy a jersey without revealing the actual jersey. Starting to question my season ticket purchases. The front office is appearing more sketchy with every thing they do. It's one screw up after another. -Sell season tickets in groups of 8 thus limiting the total groups that can access them. -Then having sold season tickets in groups of 8, they limit the first game to groups of 4 so only half of your group can get tickets. -Totally gouging fans on the price of those "first game" tickets. - Announcing no DP. - This jersey ******** up. Losing faith quickly.
Yesterday they posted this Tweet: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗞𝗶𝘁: Coming Soon.Starting tomorrow, myCITY+ members can pre-order the inaugural home jersey of our CITY. Join myCITY+ by midnight to get access to Thursday’s limited kit presale for local pick-up.🔗: https://t.co/XJFCpTG264 pic.twitter.com/O5ikoTcKf0— St Louis CITY SC (@stlCITYsc) November 2, 2022 Today, the jersey went on sale (pre-orders). Only they didn't reveal the jersey. They expect fans to buy it sight unseen. Why? Why would you f@ck with your own fans like that?
But certainly, seeing the responses online, more people would buy if they could see it. At most, it is a shitty jersey and this tricks people into buying it. Again, a total FU to your fans.
Major League Soccer, FOX Sports, TelevisaUnivision, TSN & RDS Announce Multi-year Linear TV Rights Agreements https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/majo...visaunivision-tsn-rds-announce-multi-year-lin
What St Louis expansion can learn from Austin. https://www.stltoday.com/sports/col...jcbekpYLUruVbahiuhZjfN9clr8mFVhgf0vxbDcEdGTAM
Just something to ponder: Will the addition of San Diego as an expansion team in 2025 move St. Louis CITY SC to the Eastern Conference?
Let’s hope so. Maybe it would end all the KC rivalry nonsense. Kansas City has never been and never will be our rival. Chicago - Blues/Cards Nashville - Blues/Rams are both bigger, more natural rivals.
I'll weigh in and say absolutely not. There's no reason to move any team from either conference with San Diego's entry into the MLS family. The current lineup would have an even split of 15 teams in each conference, which the league seems determined to keep. Even if MLS decided to go with a configuration of 4 divisions, St. Louis would more than likely be in a division that's a part of the Western Conference, if said divisions consisted of two with 8 teams and two with 7 teams. The best idea I could come up with is this: PACIFIC: Real Salt Lake, San Diego, Los Angeles Galaxy, Los Angeles FC, San Jose, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver. WEST CENTRAL: Colorado, Dallas, Austin, Kansas City, Houston, Minnesota, St. Louis. EAST CENTRAL: Chicago, Cincinnati, Nashville, Columbus, Atlanta, Orlando, Charlotte, Miami. ATLANTIC: Toronto, DC United, Philadelphia, New York Red Bulls, New York City FC, Montreal, New England. Teams from the Pacific and West Central divisions would comprise the Western Conference, with the Atlantic and East Central divisions making up the Eastern Conference. Splitting up MLS with 5 divisions of 6 teams, 6 divisions of 5 teams, or 3 divisions of 10 teams would give you lineups that would not be acceptable to owners (or fans), as too many rivalries would be negatively impacted.
In addition, there are other places in the hunt for expansion, and that strongly affects where CITY will land. And the money received from expansion makes expansion too enticing for the MLS owners to disregard adding more teams. Detroit has been in the hunt for a while. I think it would be the front-runner. Oklahoma City has the money and also a strong desire to add MLB and NFL teams. It was one of the cities mentioned when that team west of us was looking for a new home (along with San Antonio, Richmond, Raleigh, and I think Tulsa). Pittsburgh keeps surfacing, too. Baltimore has something to say here, too. Madison or Milwaukee appear frequently as well. (IMHO, Madison would be the better soccer city.) Las Vegas is inevitable, but more likely from relocation of an existing team. New Orleans bubbles up from time to time, pretty much literally. I hope not. I agree with the two-conference four-division alignment. The stability it brought to the NHL and the success of the NFL are important. The MLB's new schedule and the NBA's conference standing approach reduce some of the importance of their three-division alignments. FWIW, the cities I think are strongly in the mix for MLB expansion are Charlotte, Nashville, and Salt Lake City in the NL and either Buffalo, either Indianapolis or Oklahoma City, and very likely Portland in the AL.
IMHO, they should stop expansion. They are going to hurt the teams. No one wants to be a team that continually finishes 35-40. Stop at 30. Start a new league to complete with USL - all new cities - no current MLS teams. Announce a 20 year plan to establish the second league and then start rel/pro. USL teams will beg to join MLS second league. It will end USL. MLS will then have the 3 top leagues in the country. With pro/rel in the top two and the third (MLS Next) as a farm system.
I think there are at least 12-15 markets with more than a million people in their metro areas that could support an MLS team. With expansion fees being what they are though, I think it would be difficult to find that many investors for the newer teams. I wouldn't mind seeing promotion/relegation for soccer here, but I'm not bothered that it does not exist. Seeing how the game's popularity has grown since I began watching it in the 1970's is satisfaction enough for me.
Overexpansion was one of the things that killed the original NASL. I could see 32 teams, though. That makes divisions easier. The problem is that there is way too much money in expansion for them to stop, so they'll go to at least 36. It's the owners' drug.
Overexpansion was their problem, yes, but it was in things happening too rapidly and without enough vetting. MLS has neither issue.
The MLS does have plenty of other issues, though. When Precourt tried to move the Columbus Crew to Austin, the MLS hastily approved expansion to Cincinnati, a smaller market than Columbus. This certainly appeared as an attempt to squeeze the Crew out of Ohio. Some amazing persistence by Columbus fans and the Modell law in Ohio stopped that move. The MLS then awarded the Austin expansion team to Precourt. Enos Stanley Kroenke. 'Nuff said. Years after the push for natural grass field Soccer Specific Stadiums, the MLS still has five teams playing on artificial Field Turf (Atlanta, Charlotte, New England, Portland, and Seattle), two on hybrid grass/turf (Cincinnati and Toronto), and one on Polytan (Vancouver), six teams playing in NFL or CFL stadiums (Atlanta, Charlotte, New England, Seattle, Toronto, and Vancouver) and one (NYCFC) still playing in a baseball stadium, although that will end in a few years. There are also teams with soccer specific stadiums that aren't located in the main city, but are quite a distance from it (Colorado plays in Commerce City, FC Dallas plays in Frisco, Inter Miami CF plays in Fort Lauderdale, the Kansas whatevers play in a shopping mall parking lot wedged between a Bass Pro Shop and a NASCAR track somewhere in the far reaches of Wyandotte County, and Philadelphia plays in Chester). Add to that Chicago, which deserves special mention for moving from a suburban soccer specific stadium back to a downtown (former) NFL stadium.