Nice to see them publicly reveal the San Diego timeframe. Though sad it got delayed a year from the original strong hints and rumors they had leaked.
Kenn, Just thinking back on last years roster, Kempin, Lopez, Bessone, Duke all come to mind that were more or less no shows when it came to minutes. But like you said, it's 1 year on 1 roster ... not a big enough representative. Either way, I'm not advocating they shorten the roster, just found it interesting GL mentioned it. I agree ... I want those loaned out players playing in the Open Cup with their own team (unless playing against the parent club).
Well, 3 of the 4 are some of the youngest. The #3 GK who is 20 in a year when the #1 keeper plays EVERY minute for the MLS season doesn't leave a lot of opportunities, the other two were draft picks, one of which spend a lot of time with the U20's at the WC and qualifying, etc. The 4th is a player that was released after the season. Every team has a few young players that never see the pitch ... those are the players I think each team MAY be able to afford to do without. And yeah, SKC was a decent team last year ! Very interested to see who goes out on loan ... likely the #3 keeper going to play for the former #1 keepers USL team that he now coach's.
yea the Galaxy and Redbulls just seem fine with not really doing any promotion for their USL PRo club. Similar to LA lakers of the NBA D league the team just playes at the training facility. The Union have a set up very similar to the Phillies. the USL Pro is in Harrisburg PA, and PDL affiliate in Reading PA. These cities are minor league cities, they support there minor leagu affiliates to the big club and show pure pride of players who come through their minor league club. The model seems to be working just as well for the Union.
Fine take your pot shots, however, Lagerway was the one moderating that mantra to us... so... I think he has a law degree from Duke.
Funny thing is, my sense from most Union fans is we would rather have a LAII or RBNYII setup with a team very nearby that the U have complete control of if we had the choice- just seems mire advantageous overall... i'd be shocked to see that happen for the Union though, long shot even if the "small stadium training field" does gets built.
You could be right the Union set up is to my liking but really have not heard or inquired about what others think. Harrisburg and Reading and the Union all work closely together with coaches moving through the system similiar to the Reading Phillies/Lehigh Valley Pigs where the players are a short drive away for a call up but far enough away to have their own idendity.
Wow, you're defensive. That wasn't a potshot. My shots are far more obvious. I don't have to couch them. What I meant was that it sounds like they are walking that back a bit. We were led to believe (yes, by their words and actions) that San Diego was happening next year, that it was to be very shortly announced. Now it sounds like there is less steam behind that than there was not long ago. I still think that, except for the owners' ties to San Diego and the notion that San Diego is probably a better soccer market than Phoenix, affiliating here makes a lot of sense both geographically and as a tie-in to their Casa Grande operations. But rich people gonna do what rich people gonna do.
You say that like those two reasons aren't huge... And I'd add that SD is simply a better place to play soccer during the summer than Phoenix weather wise as well.
Kenn, I wasn't being defensive, although I did believe your comment about "moderating" was directed to me, since I am the source of RSL to SD talk on here. I guess my lawyer joke missed the target. Oh well. I don't know what RSL will really do, probably still San Diego. Although the Phoenix situation is much better this week than it was last week. RSL seem like a organization that would prefer 100% control.
I didn't say they weren't big reasons. But did you see the article about how extensive their Casa Grande operation is?
I did not. I could have used "tempering" and meant the same thing. Sure, there's that. It surely appears as though they'll go to San Diego. But the "better soccer market," "better weather," and "our owner has a summer home here" things are considerations that you'd think would be secondary if the entire point of this exercise is player development. It's not about giving San Diegans a team. It's not about Hansen being able to see them play three times a summer. It's not even about (primarily, anyway) having a standalone D3 team on its own merits. It's about player development.
News on Real Salt Lake's San Diego plans. Apparently, Real Salt Lake owner Hansen is going to propose to San Diego for Real Salt Lake to take over a local golf course and turn it into a soccer training complex. The idea is to develop a Real Salt Lake academy in San Diego, and possibly later an 8000 seat stadium for a USL Pro team. The academy aspect is new, but it makes sense. Salt Lake has already determined that if is going to remain successful in the homegrown player world, it needs to look outside of Salt Lake for prospects. And if Real Salt Lake is exploring having a minor league affiliate in San Diego, it makes sense to have a local academy to feed the team prospects, rather than just relying on shipping prospects from Arizona over. It is interesting to note that from the wording of the article, it looks like the decision on a USL Pro side has indeed still not been made, but that they hope to proceed with the academy regardless.
Ah, missed that. Here's a link for those interested: http://www.cbs8.com/story/25024009/oceanside-city-council-stops-soccer-academy-development Presumably, they will now look for another site in the San Diego area.
Well to be fair Oceanside just turned down the golf course site. There were other sites DLH indicated he had looked at/was interested in before he settled on the golf course. He could still get his Oceanside dream just elsewhere in the city. But after finding out his grand plan was to put the team in Oceanside I'm kind of hoping that is that and they give up on "San Diego" since they really weren't planning on putting a team in San Diego in the first place. For those geographically challenged, Oceanside is 40 miles north of San Diego and is the last San Diego County suburb on I-5 before heading into Camp Pendleton and then on to the greater LA area in Orange County. But who knows, maybe this will spur him to look closer to San Diego proper, though I won't hold my breath on that...
Run down of the other 2 potential sites in Oceanside: http://www.rslsoapbox.com/2014/3/20/5530746/aggregating-the-info-about-the-rumored-oceanside-sites
I think North County could still be a solid USL type market. Probably wouldn't be a true SD team but still a large enough population and no other competition really in North County. I know the Padres wanted to move their AAA team from Tucson to Escondido but they wanted Escondido to build the stadium and that's off the table for now.
Not just for now, it's dead. the Padres previous would be owner sold the AAA team and they were moved to El Paso this offseason. Escondido is out of the sports venue business for now. If RSL stays in SD county odds are they'll be doing it alone and privately as most sports teams in California have to do.
Can someone please explain to me exactly what the requirements of an MLS club are to its affiliate club? Regarding the loaning of players. Are MLS clubs required to loan players to their affiliate at all times? Minimum number of players? Minimum number of games? I was under the impression this was a hard requirement as part of affiliation, but it seems there doesn't seem to be any concrete rules in this area.
It is supposed to be a situation where the MLS club loans "at least" four players to its MLS affiliate. I would imagine if they need the player for a day or a week, they can recall him at any time and may not be obligated to replace him. "Hard and fast rule" and "MLS" don't equate.
That is my understanding as well, and in the case of Sacramento, both Portland and San Jose loan at least 2 players each (because of the dual affiliation). The Quakes have loaned Sacramento one player at a time. Mike Fucito was here for a few games, then got injured and Adam Jahn was here for a couple of games, but he's now been called up to play for San Jose tonight because they're so shorthanded. So, at the moment, there are no Quakes players on loan in Sacramento, and what the Quakes have loaned is one player at a time. I mean, is the rule supposed to be at least 2 players at a time, or at least 2 players for any amount of time over the course of the season? Could the Quakes theoretically have lived up to their obligation because hey, they've loaned Sacramento two players already, haven't they?? Are these affiliation rules written or posted anywhere?
I do not know if they are. I believe the spirit of the rule is four players initially. (In Sacto's case, it might be 2+2.) I do not believe it has to be 4 players at all times. I don't know for sure that the 2015 Affiliate-or-Create mandate will stick, either.