In my opinion, Rochester in MLS? NO CHANCE

Yeah, I've heard that before on these boards but I don't believe it. I've followed this a little over the years & have never heard any credible source say anything about the MLS being receptive to a bid from Rochester... Everything I've heard & seen has actually been the opposite, that MLS is not interested.

& it's also hard for me to believe that after spending all that cash on a stadium like that that the owner would not have been willing to pay the $10 million franchise fee to become part of MLS & get involved in the vastly greater corporate sponsorship, exposure, etc. That makes absolutely no sense.

Common sense tells me that it's MLS cock-blocking Rochester, not the other way around (unless you can find me a direct quote from a valid MLS source or this owner of yours that says the only reason Rochester is not in MLS is because the owner isn't willing to pay the franchise fee, I'm gonna keep believing that)

 

LOL... the best you can do is peice of third party hearsay from June 2004. That's SOLID!

The article I was talking about where Garber said "no plans for Rochester", while talking up about a dozen other cities was from earlier this year. (I'm not gonna find it now because I'm on my way out of the office) And what I'm talking about is an actual, direct, verifiable quote.. not "Don Garber's cousin's sister's lawyer's momma talked to some reporter & said he think's Rochester's cute"...

But nice try anyway!

 

You actually have the story a little backwards. The reality is that right now, Rochester has no plans for MLS. They seem to be content in the USL-1.

 

Geez, you again.
How's Schaumburg treatin' ya?

Elgin here... can't wait to hear the next Fire game on the radio when I'm driving around... oh, but wait, I'd have to learn Spanish or Polish... since the Fire don't have ANY English language radio broadcasts... let alone a weekly radio show...

What is your problem? It's obvious this year's a WC year and MLS has its wish list for cities that can build them a stadium. Call me when the shovels hit the dirt... until then, it's still a pipedream no matter what anybody else says...

The problem with smarmy dumba$$es like yourself is that you fail to appreciate the fact that the only way larger media markets make any difference whatsoever to MLS is when those same media outlets actually cover MLS in any meaningful way.

Here's the deal: If Rochester paid 15-25 million dollars and entered MLS this year, they'd also be spending $2mil a year in the red for the foreseable future. Stay in USL, and they can literally build on their success... expand the stadium AFTER they build the fanbase to see if they can bump attendance/ticket sales to break-even MLS levels. At $2mil a year, I can easily see why DuRoss is not in any mood to rush things... that money could be better saved by keeping the team in USL1.

A premature move to MLS could cost the Rhinos/DuRoss ten years worth of work and destroy the franchise in a sea of red ink.

 

OK.. reread your post. It's third party hearsay because it's one newspaper saying "we couldn't get a direct quote from the source (Garber), but another entity (third party) tells us he said this (hearsay)". Got it? The fact that this "we heard he said this from someone else" quote is from over 2 years ago makes it all the more funny.

And furthermore, I'll accept Google as my friend when you accept reading as your friend. I asked for a direct quote from Garber or Rinos Ownership that states that the reason Rochester doesn't have an MLS franchise is because the owner doesn't want to pony up the franchise fee. You gave me a 2 year old third party provided piece of hearsay that Garber made a flowery comment about Rochester that is pretty standard fare for Garber when he doesn't want to alienate fans. He's made similar statements about 10 other markets that don't yet have franchises. Doesn't mean he really is considering a franchise there.

Especially when his MOST RECENT quote on the matter in MLS.NET and he explicitly says he's not considering a franchise there. lol. (although he does let them down easy with the obligatory "they do a great job.. we talk to the owner".)

http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060410&content_id=55957&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp

Until one of you Rochester folks can direct me to a quote that says the reason there is no MLS team there is because the owner isn't willing to pony up the cash, then to claim that's the reason the MLS hasn't come to rochester yet is " just speculating... on your own. That's cool and all, but it's pretty weak sauce when you're trying to rebut an direct quote in a major sports business publication (MLS.NET)" (which is what I actually have and you haven't been able to come up with yet).

 

OK Ruffnex... I guess I could listen to a Yahoo like you... or maybe I'll take the word of Ridge Mahoney, senior editor of Soccer America magazine:

"Quite simply, Mahoney says, MLS has become too big for a smaller city like Rochester. '[MLS is] starting to attract some of the major players in the American sports world, and frankly, that's not where Rochester is," he says. "[League finances] are looking better than they were four years ago. They can afford to be a little more selective.'"

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:3508

Hmmmm... Rufnex.... Senior Editor of Soccer America Magazine... who's opinion should I give more weight... LMAO!


Y'all need to pull your heads out of the sand & wake up. You guys are suffering from arrested development. It's not 2001 anymore where the league had to entertain the thought of MAYBE allowing a franchise in Rochester. They've got Philadelphia, Cleveland, The SF Bay Area, St Louis, Milwaukee, etc. etc. etc. all working on stadium proposals & MLS bids. Rochester is DONE. stick a fork in it.

At this point, it's kind've just pathetic.

 

There may have been a time where Frank DuRoss had the option to get in the league & he didn't because of the cost, but that time passed a LONG time ago. If Frank came to MLS now & said "I've changed my mind, here's $20 million", they'd laugh him out of the MLS offices, saying "sorry dude, that ship sailed a long time ago."

 

http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060410&content_id=55957&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp

On 4/10/06 Garber did a Q&A and here is what he said about Rochester:

Frank has also said recently that MLS is very interested in the revenue that PAETEC Park is bringing in for the Rhinos and that the Rhinos expect to be keeping MLS in the loop with how things are going.

Yup, sounds like Garber and MLS would laugh at Frank if he had $20 million in hand..............

 

Yawn.

"MAYBE allowing" -- now you're just being a troll.

Let's see, think we call this perspective;

Now, I realize you're a novice at following these kinds of things over the years, but it takes a LONG time to put together a stadium deal... so when we see the latest laundry list of expansion cities used as "Garber-ganda" and compare it to reality... Cleveland is close to crossing the "finish line" years after having the same kind of MLS announcement that we heard a few weeks ago for the Bay area... as for the others, expect lots of "60-90 day" announcements... my prediction: Garber will announce Cleveland for 2008 at the All Star game in Chicago just to save face... then will make an announcement announcing another announcement that there will be a really really super-duper important announcement within "60-90 days" regarding expansion... then there'll be a whole buncha threads on bigsoccer predictably speculating "who could it be?" like a buncha giddy schoolgirls... which would be par for the course for both bigsoccer and MLS.

As for Ridge Mahoney, yeah, I remember reading his big breakdown on ALL the candidate cities for 2005 expansion... except that he NEVER once mentioned Salt Lake City or a 2nd LA team as even a possibility... can't find the specific "MLS confidential" article, but ponder this other article penned by Mahoney after Vergara announced his intent to join the league:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/soccer/08/27/mls.review.sa/index.html

At the very least, you have to take anything Ridge Mahoney or any MLS official says with a grain of salt-- because it's more than likely to be one part truth, two parts pipedream, and three parts wishful thinking...

 

A big market doesn't necessarily make a successful franchise.

 

Jefe... are you really this dumb? OK.. If an FCD player says something directly to a representative of the Dallas Morning News & they print it, that's a direct quote. If the Dallas Morning News takes a quote that someone on FCD said from someone outside of their organization (by definition, a third party to the person who's quoted and the Dallas Morning News, & also by definition Hearsay in that it is one person saying another person said something), that's called 3rd party hearsay.

When you do it on this board, it's still third party hearsay, but nobody in their right mind here would call foul on that here. It's expected in a chat-room. I do it too. Everyone here does it. But journalists are usually held to a higher standard. Normally, a newspaper doesn't print something unless they get the quote themselves, directly from the source. That's why this article your referencing is somewhat laughable. It's sketchy journalism to start with, and then it doesn't even address my original question... and THEN it's over 2 years old!

 

Jim Bob.. that's the article I'm using to make my point!!! (I posted this same link 3 posts ago!). I see that quote from Garber as classic letting 'em down easy. I mean, of course Garber's not going to alienate all the soccer fans in the Rochester area by publicly stating that their city's not right for MLS. The only part of that entire quote that matters to me is the part that says "we have no plans for Rochester". Everything else is filler. Especially when you consider the rest of the interview & how he talks about the other markets.

I dunno.... maybe I'm misreading that quote, it is interpretable.

 

OK Ruffnex... I see your point.. but at least those are public statements. I STILL don't see any public statement that refers to the Rinos not being in the MLS because their owner wouldn't pony up the cash. And yet, everyone in here says that's the reason it hasn't happened. Is everyone here personal buddies with this DuRoss guy? If not, then to say that is 1 part speculation, two parts wishful thinking.

 

I disagree. I think if Mr. DuRoss were to go to Mr. Garber with the expansion fee in tow, and a stadium that will be completed very soon, then he would gladly let them in.

In my estimation there are 12 markets that, because of their combination of population and economic strength, can succesfully sustain an MLS franchise despite there being a major league baseball team in town.

Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, D.C., Houston, Detroit, Boston, and the Bay Area. I know Denver is missing, but I don't relaly believe they should have both, and if it wasn't for the strong ownership and the stadium, they would be in the same boat as Kansas City.

The success of MLS will ultimately be determined by their ability to select the mid-market cities in which they place franchises, most of which would be better if they did not include MLB (that means you Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis). I think it would be better for MLS if they select those cities that do not already have summer major league franchises - Rochester, Portland, Vancouver, Orlando, etc.

 

I agree on Vancouver, Portland, & to a lesser degree, Orlando, but if your talking population and economic strength, does Rochester really fit in? Their the 70somethingest market in the country. And although TV rights aren't huge right now for MLS, I'm sure they factor into the consideration for where the league expands and where it doesn't. Shouldn't MLS be concerned that national ratings to watch a Tulsa team play vs. a Rochester team would be dismally low?

At least with a city like Portland or even orlando you can point to population growth & demographics, but Rochester's population is low and declining.

Anyway... it's still all speculation (as to whether MLS would accept if Mr. DuRoss offered the franchise fee... or even if Mr. DuRoss hasn't yet offered the franchise fee and been turned down). Everyone here likes to believe it as fact that MLS is pining for Rochester, but the bad, miserly Mr. DuRoss is keeping it from happening. THAT's what I was kind've pointing to & saying "where's your proof?"

 

Really and truly, would MLS's Soccer Saturday have any trouble leaving out the likes of a Rochester and a Tulsa in it's scheduling when they've already completely ignored KC? Nothing will change: we'll still see the big markets over the small ones. And how much worse would a Rochester vs Tulsa game do ratings-wise compared to a Colorado vs KC game? Or a Carolina vs Edmonton Stanley Cup?

And you need to ask yourself why MLS went to Columbus over Seattle, Atlanta and Chicago... and why it would go with SLC for 2005 over Philly, Houston, and Cleveland? And why would such "soccer hotbeds" like Portland and St Louis not get teams unless they build a stadium for MLS???

At some point you have to stop being an MLS jocksniffer long enough to figure out that unless MLS offers DuRoss a sweetheart deal, it's not in the Rhinos interest to lose millions of dollars a year in MLS playing in an incomplete stadium when they can continue to operate without those kinds of losses in USL1... ESPECIALLY if down the road, as you say, MLS starts to become obsessed with the largest markets...

And if those "largest" markets have good, consistent media coverage and develop a larger, more loyal fanbase than Rochester's, they'll get their team--that is, if they can get a stadium built...

Don't hold yer breath.

 

I'm just saying, if I'm Lamar Hunt, I move the Wizards to Rochester and find a way to sell at least a portion of the team to DuRoss. We need to worry less about TV and more about filling up the stadium, and clearly, Rochester knows how to do that. Plus, there's something to be said for being the only game in town.

 

Have faith my brothers...."IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME".........yes, faith.....

 

Is this one better:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...?AID=/20060602/SPORTS05/606020397/1007/SPORTS

 

That is better! THAT's the direct quote I was looking for... (I guess my timing in coming in here saying y'all are wrong about the franchise fee thing could have been better).

I still think it's very questionable as to whether the MLS is at all truly interested in Rochester, but I'll take this article as equal proof that Rochester (at least the Rhinos) finds the feeling mutual.

I still PERSONALLY feel it would be a mistake for MLS to choose Rochester over some other city with 10X the population first, but that's just IMO (believe it or not, I do see your point about Rochester's proven ability to put behinds to seats).

 

How many places have 10x the population of the Rochester Area (which is right around a million)? Just New York City and LA.