DC fans have to be pissed that they have struggled so badly to get a stadium done but the league just commits to building a staidum for a team that doesnt even exist. This is like cell phone companies offering free phones to new customers but making returning customers pay for them. I understand why it happens but it has to be infuriating when you are on that end of it.
I was waiting for someone to say this, I'm not familiar with single entity leagues, is this deal fair? what about san jose? D.C? and a slew of other teams that would also benefit from a complex like this?
I'll admit it's annoying. But we just had a billionaire buy a controlling interest in United, so we're feeling a lot better about our stadium prospects going forward. Still, I'm not sure this is the best move for the league. Putting so much money into this stadium before the league has identified the owners of the hypothetical NYC2 seems pretty risky.
Who says they are not identified? I would bet Garber and co. have a pretty good idea of who will own the new team. At the very least, there is likely a very short list of possibilities right now.
By "identified" I mean "entered into a contract to operate the new team." Maybe they're at that point already, I don't know. But it strikes me as odd that MLS would be willing to spend money for a stadium without an actual owner group in place.
MLS is a single entity, if they can't identify or get a firm committment from a new I/O for NY2 the league could run the NY2 for the first few years and then "sell" the I/O stake to someone. MLS could also have AEG run NY2 for a few seasons as well............. NY2 will help not only MLS get more lucrative TV contracts, but will also help SUM and USSF gain more lucrative TV contracts. Think about it: The USOC Final could be played in this new stadium every year.
League-owned teams are never a good idea. We've seen how that works out in MLB and the NHL. MLS would, IMHO, be making a big mistake if it ended up starting up a NYC2 without an independent owner group. I'm not opposed to a NYC2, per se. I just don't think that NY soccer fans have done enough to show that a second team in that market is as obvious a home run as you think it is. What if MLS does what you suggest and runs the team for a few years and it turns out to be a bust? The league would then be stuck with a boatload of debt on an expensive stadium and a team that doesn't cover the costs of said stadium. AFAIK, MLS has no financial exposure when it comes to stadium expenses for its existing 19 teams. So, why mess with that model and incur stadium-related debt for team #20?
I think certain ownership groups in the league (i.e. SKC, Portland, and Seattle) have shown that ownership is a key component to a successful franchise. Having committed owners that are involved and taking the team in a clear direction, building a relationship with the community, and creating a fun gameday experience is vital to the success of teams within this league. If you have a league ran franchise, you lack that intimacy and the team would have a more corporate feel. Which is exactly what you have with the other NY team when it is owned by a large international corporation that doesnt have a vested interested in the NY community. So, having a league owned team would create a similar franchise to what NY already has. I think the key to having a successful franchise in NY is to create something that contrast with Red Bull in that the team has a more local feel to it and feels like part of NY. NYRB doesnt have that with the stadium in NJ and the owners located in Austria. They need to get some NY owners that know the city, the potential fans in the market will relate too, and differ themselves from NYRB as much as possible.
That's a fair point. MLS' Headquarters, or home base if you will, is located in NYC though. So in a way MLS would be a local owner. MLS also has a vested interest in NY2 being a success due to the large investment being made for the stadium.
True. But any caretaker management team running a NYC2 for a few years would have a really tough job because they couldn't implement long-term plans for dealing with supporters groups, marketing and the like. It would be tough to get a quality coach or DPs to sign on to a league-run team due to the uncertainty about the future. And so on. The first few years of a team's life are crucial for that team to hit the ground running with the fans and the local community and establish the tone for the team going forward. A bland, league-run team would have a much tougher time impressing its potential fan-base (especially in a jaded, cynical place like NYC) than a team with its own owners.
It's just not the same as having an owner. It just doesnt have the same intimate and personal feel that it should have. I dont know that we would have the level of support we do here in SKC if it werent for Robb Heinemann and the way he interacts with fans or his passion for the team. There is a picture of him sitting in the middle of the field last Wednesday during the day looking at the scoreboard like he was dreaming of winning the cup. You just dont get that kind of stuff from a league ran team. Not to mention that they have to remain impartial. Can you imagine the outcry if the league went out and got NY2 someone like Messi or C. Ronaldo? Do you really think the other owners want the league shelling out money for NY2 Designated Players? The league just cant fairly run a team like that or at least without not consequences.
USOC Final every year? How does that make sense? At least rotate or bid like the current system. I agree with Potowmack, it's odd they would do this without an announced ownership group in place.
I have 3 concerns with this plan. First and foremost, $300 million is a lot for a stadium, even in Queens. Particularly if as is being touted it will be privately financed. When other teams are building beautiful Stadiums for 1/2 to 1/3rd that, even in areas that are nearly as expensive as Queens it begs the question WTF are they planning? A stadium to put all other team's stadiums to shame? Which in and of itself isn't a brilliant idea. Second issue, is that the league, which is still not profitable, is planning to make this massive purchase before they've got the I/O signed/sealed/delivered. It would make much more sense to have the I/O lined up and have THEM pay for the stadium. That is unless MLS (and the USSF) have other ideas for the stadium beyond just a home for Team 20 (perhaps a permanent east coast home for the USMNT?) Third issue, RBNY. This plan will end up making RBNY the east coast's answer to Chivas USA regardless of who builds it an who pays for it. And they'll be doing it to an ownership, who unlike Chivas, have already spent 200 million dollars building the league one of its nicest stadiums in Harrison. Red Bull may not fear that their position will be compromised by a team existing in NYC proper, and may even be inviting it as a real local rival, but they're also dreaming. A stadium right off the Subway in NYC that is accessible to everyone in the city much easier than RBNY are off the train line, which hosts a team who aren't branded after an energy drink, is going to destroy RBNY attendance wise. Not to mention the new team will pick up many of the fans who became disillusioned with MLS and/or the team when the MetroStars were rebranded. Red Bull Arena will quickly start to look like HDC does on Chivas USA game days.
This article says that its not the league or tax payers paying for the stadium but some rich guy from the UAE. http://deadspin.com/5934394/new-yor...be-owned-by-a-rich-dude-from-dubai?tag=soccer
I think its smart of the league to build the stadium. MLS is not like the other teams in the NY metro area who except for the Islanders, all are playing in new or rebuild stadia. Would seem to make getting the rest of the land deal, approvals, enviro ok's easier when you aren't asking the city or state for money for the SSS itself. Could also be a good selling point, a new buyer would have to worry about the headaches of building the place, just write the check and move in. I don't know how all the other stadium deals went down in NY, but I just can't see this place being built for anyone other than the Cosmos. That group didn't have the money. MLS apparently does or can. I am sure a deal for the name can be worked out. This brings world wide attention to the league and may even bring back some of those old time NASL fans, just like the league did when SEA< PDX<SJ came back. The only problem I see is the team itself. If you are going to call yourself the COSMOS, you had better bring your A game and A team.. We are talking on the level of Ronaldo, Messi etc. This can not be any old expansion team.
This is another thing about this deal that just pisses me off. The league just swoops in and will build a stadium for a team that doesn't even exist yet. What a load of crap. DC plays in a dump, San Jose fills their stadium all the time and could easily hold twice that many but the city isn't playing ball. Dick's Sporting Goods sits by itself out in a field. FC Dallas stadium is an hour's drive from downtown Dallas. Why isn't the league doing anything for these ACTUAL teams who already have ACTUAL fans and ACTUAL players?
Because they have owners. Its not like MLS is building a stadium for free. If they sell the team to an ownership group, that group will foot he bill. If the league operates the team, the stadium will be a revenue stream.
. They need to bring their A game to keep up with other expansion teams but they dont need to break the bank to get those level of stars. That is one of the reasons the Cosmos folded and the reason so many European squads are struggling financially. It most certaintly can be any old expansion team. Vancouver, Montreal, Portland, and Seattle all have done fine and keeping up with the recent examples is all they need to do.
In an interview with bloomberg businessweek Courtemanche said the new owners would have to commit to build a new stadium and pay a franchise fee. http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...r-scouts-new-york-for-team-to-rival-red-bulls "Once a stadium location is set, MLS will select an ownership group, Courtemanche said. The new owners would have to commit to build a new stadium and pay a franchise fee."
In an interview with bloomberg businessweek Courtemanche said the new owners would have to commit to build a new stadium and pay a franchise fee. http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...r-scouts-new-york-for-team-to-rival-red-bulls "Once a stadium location is set, MLS will select an ownership group, Courtemanche said. The new owners would have to commit to build a new stadium and pay a franchise fee."