Cincinnati is virtually the same size as San Antonio (and is the fast growing city in the Midwest atm...shocking I know...but leadership has had a run of 8 solid years of forward thinking) bigger question is, lawsuit from San Antonio or nah
Haven't talked to a friend in SA govt about this yet, but I will be surprised if not. The city purchase of Toyota Field probably would've been misuse of public funds if they had known PSV had such an easy out to Austin that it was likely to use. If anything that the league did was intended to deceive them about Austin, according to a reasonable doubt standard, then they have a good case.
Re: Cincy growth. It really depends upon the time frame. Last year, they may have grown more, but over the last 10-20 (and generally), the fastest growing "Major League" sized MW cities have been Columbus, KC, Indy and the Twin Cities. Cincinnati does tend to grow at a better clip than the others though. Regardless, then don't have the long term growth rates of the Sun Belt up and comers. When you look at the size of the northern, non coastal markets KC, Ohio's 3 Cs, Indy, and Pittsburgh are virtually identical (metro GDP). They're in something of a logjam. STL is a bit larger, but is in the slow growing half of the dozen or so "major league" cities in the broader region. The quality of the offers in terms of public funding, stadium location, stadium amenities and quality of ownership is what will separate any of these cites from one another in any major league sports bid. If we're talking an Austin, San Antonio, Nashville, Charlotte, a case could be made that the quality of the expansion package might be inferior to Cincy/Indy/logjam city here, but....growth. As far as San Antonio goes...they can try a suit. Good luck with that. MLS is going to tell them that between the time of the stadium funding and the Austin relo movement, events changed. They're also going to tell them that they register marks in all sorts of cities for defensive purposes. They're also going to tell them that many franchises acquire relo options not out of intent to move, but for "insurance" and that MLS is not compelled to disclose these agreements because it would harm the clubs with these agreements with respect to marketing/PR in their current cities. They're also going to say that they've also had a change of heart regarding the efficacy of San Antonio and Austin both having a club and that SA is welcome to continue the process. What this move does hint at IMO is that MLS feels confident enough in the progress made by a sufficient number of other clubs in the expansion process (SAC, PHX, DET, Nashville, Cincy) such that even if SA's bid continues to progress but they lose out, MLS has a sound argument that SA would have lost out regardless of the Crew relo. SAC is the "safest". PHX and DET the "largest". Two of Nashville/Cincinnati/San Antonio were going to lose out and after considering XYZ, it became obvious city A was the best choice blah blah blah.
With Columbus going southwest....wouldn't that imply that Cincy and Nashville are in making SA the only loser in the group? Rebuttal on growth rates: The area, I believe, was actually losing people up until 2009 when we for better or worse bottomed out. The recession sucked but it was a wake up call, the days of the Midwest being America's Ruhr Valley are over. You have to diversify the economy. Cincy and Columbus (and Cleveland to some extent) made changes, having city anchors like AK steel, Kroger & P&G helped us. Uof Cincy launching their start up initiative giving free office space to graduates who wished to start a business till they got going was really really helpful. I'm glad the city gov got their act together before the rust overtook us as it has northeast Ohio (or any other depressed area in the Midwest).
Why doesn't Precourt move to Austin then turn and move to San Antonio after a season. Seems like a loop hole. Just play at UT till then
The only way there will be a MLS team in San Antonio is if the Spurs own it. They have a lease on the stadium and a lot of influence with the City and County.
You can have Precourt. We certainly don't want him, but the Crew belongs in Columbus. Seriously, who, meaning fanbase and local government, would want an owner that lied to local government, alienated local businesses (Heartland Bank, Columbus Partnership) , chased off a major sponsor (Barbasol) and gave a middle finger to his customers (not refunding season ticket packages until forced) and isn't local to your city? Someone that is universally hated by all the other MLS fan bases? Why would any city welcome this guy? What faith do you have that he won't do the same thing to you that he is trying to do with us?
Precourt is a punk. guy never liked ohio and never will. I would much rather see him just sell the team, take his money and go back to California but that's not what assholes do and precourt is an asshole.
If Precourt was on the expansion committee with Garber knowing he was moving to Austin, the league was negotiating with SA in bad faith. SA used public funds to purchase a stadium on the advice of MLS officials to further their expansion effort. That's fraud. But, even if the lawsuit has no legs, do you think the MLS, Garber and the other owners really want to go through discovery in a year when the CBA is going to expire? You think the Players Union would like to see what they can see when the books are pried open? It would make better sense for the league to buy Precourt out or force him to sell to local CBus invertors who made an effort to purchase back in 2013.
No offense to a staff member intended, but I am going to take the words of an actual professional over some poster on the internet. https://www.ksat.com/sports/soccer/...ustin-connection-asks-bexar-da-to-investigate
Don't care if you believe me. But not telling of an unexercized right in another city does not = fraud.
Suing MLS seems like an odd strategy to me. I don't think they have much of a case and they are probably burning bridges with MLS even if the Austin move completely falls through. What exactly is their intended outcome? I continue to contend that Austin and San Antonio are completely separate markets with non-overlapping spheres of influence, and the idea that one city blocks the other is nonsensical. If I were MLS I'd emphasize that a relocation to Austin was (and at this point is) not imminent, and even if it happened it would have no impact on SA's expansion bid.
I doubt it is about getting an expansion team. It is more likely about getting money out of MLS. The city, county, and Spurs spent a good amount of money negotiating with the Scorpions on a price for the stadium, buying the stadium from the Scorpions, wining/dining MLS, and coming up with an expansion package to submit.. All of this was only done because MLS told them they had a legitimate shot at an expansion team and will likely be a lost investment if they aren’t able to get a MLS expansion team..
Texas already has two of the three worst attended teams in the league and you think they should get two more?
It wasn't "if you do X, MLS will do Y". But instead, they were told it will help their chances. SA knew there was risk involved. Hell, Cooper spent millions in St. Louis and was told with the passage of the bills, that he had a team. Never happened. Seattle was told they had a team a decade before it happened. Contractual promises and negotiation puffing are two entirely different things. MLS is dishonest and distrustful. I've been warning a bout Garber for years. But what they are doing, while complete bullshit, is not illegal or grounds for a lawsuit.
Maybe go read what I wrote? I never said that San Antonio was guaranteed a team. I only said they were told they had a legitimate shot at a team. The same shot that every expansion bid had. The problem here is that MLS withheld that they already had an agreement with one of their owners to possibly move their club to a city roughly an hour drive away. It also wasn’t just any owner.. It was an owner that was on the committee in charge of awarding expansions.
Sure. It's where they put the youth program and now the HoF. But it's not like they've ever really opened the wallet wider than the average team for the roster, or done much to publicize the team. There are advantages and disadvantages to being owned by the Hunt family.
If they ever sold them their fans should look over the agreement for any "out" clause. I blame Clark Hunt as much as anyone for the situation in Columbus.