Ok, so y'all can take this with however many grains of salt that you'd like, but the other day I heard that in addition to the group already working on bringing USL to Las Vegas (something *should* be announced pretty soon), there is another group that is a) looking to possibly relocate an existing USL team here and b) working on getting a smaller SSS built just outside the LV city limits. Now this info kinda came out of nowhere but the person I heard it from is someone who would be privy to such information. We shall see.
I would imagine only one of those groups would be successful. USL isn't going to disregard its own territorial exclusivity guidelines to put two teams in Las Vegas. Use your head.
I completely agree ... I was just asking the question just because of the way the "rumor" was worded. And yes, I understand it's just a rumor anyways. I would love to see a southwest division with El Paso, Tuscon, Vegas, Albuquerque added to the mix if existing teams down there.
Harrisburg seems to have more than one suitor, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're talking to people in Las Vegas too. Haven't heard a peep about Orange County being on the market ... but they really should be. One thing is for certain: there's a market for USL teams.
Yeah, it wasn't said one way or the other but there's no way there'd be two USL teams here. It's going to be interesting enough seeing whether the Mobsters and *insert USL team here* can co-exist or not.
Common sense > How it was worded. It was obvious what he meant. One group is working on doing this. Another group is working on doing the other. There can only be one winner in those sweepstakes. There aren't going to be two USL teams in Las Vegas, that's silly. It's interesting enough seeing if the Mobsters can exist (much less coexist) at all. As for buying and moving an existing club....who does that?* It's not like the pattern is full and there are no fresh, never-before-in-existence franchises you could just buy from the folks in Tampa. And despite what at least one incredibly dumb person suggested once, there's no benefit in buying an existing USL club and moving it because you're not getting their human capital (for the most part - almost no one is going to move across the country to work for a USL team) or (likely) their player contracts (most of which are for one year) or their history (which no one in your new city cares about). Just get a new franchise. It's not that hard. There's (almost literally) an unlimited number of them available, unlike in a lot of sports where your only shot is to buy someone else's. *Yes, Louisville, special case. I can think of two others: the Colorado Foxes being (more or less) "bought" and "moved" to San Diego. They also took absolutely nothing with them from Colorado. And the Nashville people selling their A-League rights to the guys from Virginia Beach because their lease mandated they have an A-League team in that facility. But nothing went from Nashville to Virginia Beach except the rights to operate a franchise.
Is there a financial benefit in doing so? Would it be less costly to purchase an existing franchise (possibly on the cheap) than to pay the expansion fee for a whole new club?
That's possible ... another possibility is that the ownership group in say Harrisburg understands that they can't make it work financially in Harrisburg and but wants to keep being an owner (or partial owner) in a USL club, and finds an investor in another market (say Vegas) that they can essentially split costs with to some extent. Vegas is a cheap place to fly and decent place to visit if you're an "out of market" owner. All that being said ... like Kenn said, it's pretty damn rare and even if it's done, it's not like you're purchasing it because of players/front office/name brand, etc. It will likely get "re-branded" and the only benifit is that it's cheaper than the cost of an expansion (which is pretty damn low, but not "nothing"). It's possible that ownership doesn't change hands and that an out of town owner has a group in that market ready to run the marketing/operations/stadium lease side of things while the owner takes care of the technical side of things/player contracts, etc and they split profits (or loss's) accordingly. At this point ... who wins "USL rights" may come down to the USL knowing if a team like Harrisburg has any other options ... if it can move to another location, the stand alone Vegas group "wins" ... if not, they may throw the current Harrisburg group a bone and figure a way to "relocate" them if that's an option.
It might, particularly in the sense that you might not be buying 100% of the club. Take Harrisburg, for example. I know they're actively talking about selling and relocating the team, but for some reason I also thought the existing owner wanted to maintain a stake in the relocated team. If that's true, you could buy into that club and move it for less than full price.
I've heard the USL group is negotiating with a "major" European club. To be a partner. But there will be a side in Las Vegas next year.
Remember "There may be an announcement regarding a Las Vegas USL team as early as April?" 23 days left in May.
Yeah well, that's why "may" was used instead of "will". that aside, my hope for this happening is waning. I've heard the same rumors about partnering with a Euro club. I also heard talk of partnering with a Brazilian club previously. There's always some reason for a delay. I am now officially in "I'll believe it when I see it" mode.
Do you have any knowledge of why the group prefers USL to NASL? NASL could use a pacific time zone club.
This is speculation (mostly) on my part, but I believe the requirements for USL are less stringent and less costly as well. There's supposedly some big money behind the effort though so maybe it's something else entirely.
It will be interesting to see how these types of choices evolve over the next few years. As USL adds more MLS reserve teams it benefits from scale and the ability to have regional divisions. But it also looks very very minor league. NASL as a more ambitious league of independent teams needs to get stronger to create enough separation that investors see it as a better choice for a well-monied non-MLS affiliated club. Interesting times.
So the Las Vegas USL team that could have been announced as early as April has yet to be announced and today is June 1, correct? Just making sure.
I've heard explanations but I no longer believe any of the stuff being said so I'm not bothering repeating it here.
Also puts NASL in even more of a bind. With Vegas spoken for, that would put yet another Pacific Time Zone market off the table for NASL. Leaving them really only San Diego, San Francisco, and Inland Empire as options on paper (obviously the standard disclaimers of needing ownership and a stadium in all 3 areas still applies)