It seems in this latest version of what MLS is looking for in expansion is playing down the soccer specific stadium and will look to see how things go with Gillette which may help cities such as Seattle that likely will be working with the NFL stadium owners.. http://www.ctnow.com/sports/hc-mlsshort209.artfeb09,0,3481512.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports Maybe some frustration over stadiums is setting in. I'm not sure I like the trend. We need to hold fast for soccer specific stadiums in my opinion. I'm not set in stone on this, though.
Well.. it does make sense to be flexible. A siutation like the Krafts or Hunt in KC does help MLS. Sachin
The problem with requiring SSS's for expansion teams is that there's still a fair degree of concern as to whether MLS will be around in 5 to 10 years time. Unless the I/O thinks he can get a return on his investment even if MLS folds, he's likely to be hesitant to spend $30 million+ to build a new stadium that could possibly be tenantless in just a few years down the road. That's why for the next few years at least, it makes sense for MLS to look at adding expansion teams that use NFL stadiums. Of course the expansion teams need to have good lease terms, with either the owner of the stadium running the MLS team as well (NE & KC) or the MLS expansion franchise renting the stadium for a reasonable rent (Colorado).
It was never a requirement written on stone tablets but several months ago it sure sounded like it was one by the way Garber was talking about anyone who wished to be considered for a franchise.
Re: Re: MLS "backing down" on SSS requirement? Very sensible way to look at it. Perhaps when (and if) the teams that have SSS's are operating out of the red, new stadiums will be a lot easier to make happen for any new teams and those that don't have them now.
No. I, for one, do not think the KC's and NE's situations are good for MLS. I don't want any more of them. MLS needs to command respect and identity. It would be a different story if MLS were filling the stadiums like the NFL. Then, it would be similar to the centers where the Blackhawks (NHL) and the Bulls (NBA) play together. But, it's not. MLS staying in those caverns is damaging and will remain damaging until they can have stadiums with natural grass, suitable field size, no remnants (EVER!) of a football gridiron, their logo featured on the stadium in a comparable manner to any other team playing there... it's just not acceptable to me. I would rather MLS hold off on expansion than add a club in an NFL stadium because it is the lesser of the two available evils (i.e., if no SSS can be available, the two choices are get a situation like KC or just rent from a random NFL team). My 2 cents. And, I agree with those who suggested Garber basically stated that it would be a requirement (in not so direct words). He was so adamant about it and I think that most anyone who listened would have taken the same idea that many of us did. No expasion clubs unless they have a stadium suitable for soccer. In my mind, that means SSS and no massive NFL stadiums. But, it may mean something else to MLS management.
it seems to me : there is only one major requirement here A NEW INVESTOR , everything else is negotiable and means nothing , you got the money your in
So hilarious.....who cares what anyone here wants...its what the market will bear... If MLS can get someone/communities to commit to SSS (sink 30-40m into a stadium, maybe more...plus franchise fees, sharing losses, +, +) then do it, but its assinine for anyone here to DEMAND IT or EXPECT IT based on soccer's terrible profit history....I think its great for MLS that some communities are considering financing stadium, but personally, I think its nutz (for locals to finance an SSS or any pro stadium for that matter). Stuff like MLS should be left to the Anschutz's of the world...big boys with big bucks who can afford to lose it (not the taxpayer AGAIN). I like soccer, but I'd vote down any tax increase/bond sale for an SSS in my neighborhood....
I don't really mind the idea of playing at an NFL stadium so long as the rent is reasonable and MLS can make some sort of profit from it. The Giants stadium thing from what I understand is not what anyone associated with MLS wants. I do however like the idea of the Kraft statdium in NE, I think it benefits both. As far as a SSS requirement for MLS I thought Garber said a few months ago that if teams wanted to join, that was one thing they needed. I specifically remember Rochester being involved. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that though.
The inherent risk of courting NFL team/stadium owners, however, is that those owners may just be looking at soccer less as a committment for its own sake, than as a side-show to get some additonal return on an otherwise empty stadium during the NFL off-season. And in that scenario, MLS becomes the ugly step-shild, forced to accept rotten scheduling, fake grass, and football lines. MLS has to learn its lessons not just from the NASL, but also the earlier ALPF (the American League of Professional Football, formed in 1894). That league was, at its core, nothing more than baseball team owners wishing to get more use out of their empty stadiums in the baseball offseason, and needless to say, when the going got rough, the owners pulled the plug. Just something to be wary of.
MLS has to ask themselves "Is it better to be in Philly or Seattle and play in brand new NFL stadiums" or "is it better to be in OKC, Rochester or St. Paul and be in a SSS". Its sounds to me MLS is asking that question and the answer seems to be 1 large market, 1 new NFL stadium and 1 small market, 1 small stadium. It makes sense to me to go in that direction.
In this article: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/5270436.htm It says: "• STADIUM CONTROL: Garber said its a primary goal of the league eventually to have all its stadiums controlled by the owner of the team. In some areas, that means having teams owned by NFL owners like Hunt, who has operational control of Arrowhead Stadium. In others, it means constructing soccer-specific stadiums, like Hunt did in Columbus, Ohio, with Crew Stadium. "We can't be tenants in large stadiums and be financially viable," Garber said."