It depends on the judges' vacation plans. I'm pretty sure that their law clerks are working. And matters involving preliminary injunctions are priorities. Even judges who are on vacation usually stay in contact with their chambers, and usually do necessary work. If there was going to be a summary affirmance, we would have seen it already. If there was going to be a reversal, I suspect we would have seen it already, too. That's why I think we're looking at an affirmance that corrects the district court on certain legal matters but reaches the same ultimate result.
Doesn't change the fact this is all nerve wracking with how leisurely the court is at reaching the decision.
Well, the court was obviously closed for Christmas on Monday. And per Miki Turner on Twitter, they were closed today as well. So the earliest we’ll get a decision this week is tomorrow. Also, if we don’t get a decision tomorrow or Thursday, we will not get one until next Tuesday at the earliest. (The court will also be closed on Friday, and Monday is New Year’s.)
I see NASL updated their team logos on their web page- 6 total with SF and EDM gone and NC to USL If the court deals the final blow, what is the most updated info on the future of the 6? - Puerto Rico is shattered as a community right now, I just can't see soccer as a priority when the island needs such more important needs. I know other threads have beat it to death, but is it too short of time for Indy and Jax to jump into USL2 scheduling wise? Is that one of the reasons NCFC jumped now in order to be included in USL planning for next years schedule? Wouldn't you think that maybe USL builds several versions of the 2018 schedules, with various combos of any NASL teams coming over ? Or is that thinking too far out of the box. Have seen very little of anything about California United and their web page is pretty bare. San Diego has made a little more noise, but maybe USL happens in 2019 rather than 2018 and even that would be a big if, to give the teams time to build. Orange County has been a tough nut for soccer, the USL team has a beautiful new stadium, but needs to build up a fan base, not sure about 2 teams in the OC. San Diego is a complete separate market in a very large city, so it would be a good place and frankly, USL is probably a better fit than MLS at this point. I have gone to games in so many leagues in San Diego back to the original NASL, and none drew anything special. Indoor soccer was the buzz. Still, with no NFL=NBA=NHL, soccer should be at least trying to get on the sports radar. NYCosmos and Miami. Don't know. Lot of bridges burned. My guess is they sit out 2018, wait for NISA to launch. Then they simply have a 2 tier "independent" organization of NISA- NPSL and if they want to plan pro-rel between them, great. My 2 questions with that is- Has USSF made any mention that that will or have already sanction NISA or whatever USSF calls it? Second, why would any future owner of NISA want to come into a league (even is it is lower fees) and be told you could be relegated and dropped a level? Or is that one reason the pricing is less? Maybe that scares off potential owners who might like the stability over at MLS-USL-PDL. One of the things you have to give MLS-USL-PDL, is the huge attention paid to validating ownership groups and their commitment. You have to admit the lessoned number of drops has been better, certainly compared to NASL
I don't think NISA has applied to be sanctioned. They are still trying to put together the initial teams.
Sorry but comparing old NASL in San Diego to today, is like comparing the real Cosmos with the nu-Cosmos.
Strange ... an NHL team returning to Kansas City would make a hell of a lot more sense than Las Frickin' Vegas. What a geographically odd league ...
Can’t really argue with the results so far in Vegas. They’ve been tearing it up on the ice and at the box office from what I understand.
- It would be almost in reverse. Cosmos 1 better than Cosmos 2 just because of the players they fielded. Whatever SD 2 comes up with could be better than SD 1 with good ownership, stadium , stable league etc. The interest in soccer has changed greatly since the 70's
The huge expansion fee that NHL is now charging almost precludes any smaller market team from making a solid bid in a non-hockey traditional market. In fact the ONLY market i think NHL has been really gung ho about getting into was the northwest Seattle/Portland markets. with the ancient history Seattle has and the strong minor hockey history that the region has maintained. With the new Key Arena refitting being done. It's paved a way for the NHL to move to Seattle.
I didn't say anything about expansion. Both the Penguins and Islanders played preseason games at the Sprint Center while extorting their home metros into building them new palaces. Worked for the Penguins. The Islanders were bluffing.
Um, Las Vegas is averaging 17,822 a game which is 103% of capacity and they are one of the best teams in the league. Also, why is the NHL geographically odd? The NBA is in such media meccas as Salt Lake City, Orlando, San Antonio, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Memphis and others. The NFL has teams in New Orleans, Indianapolis, Buffalo, Baltimore, Nashville and of course everyone's idea of a major market...Green Bay. And, Las Vegas will be on board in 2 years. The NHL is no odder than any other league.
I'm guessing he means its odd that ice hockey expanded to a city in the middle of the desert in addition to Phoenix, southern California and South Florida. When there are cities that actually have winter like Quebec City, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City and Hamilton don't.
That's just, like ... my opinion, man ... Okay, so the Knights are doing well in the rink and getting great crowds. Good for Vegas, good for the NHL. To be fair, they currently have the sports scene all to themselves. Let's see if they can keep up those attendance numbers once the Raiders move in to town. My only point is, with every other pro sport there's at least some presence or history of that sport being played at the youth or rec league levels, including their respective fields or courts. But if you'll forgive me for stating the obvious, hockey needs ice. (Whether it's an outdoor rink with natural winter ice or an indoor arena, I'm not sure that matters much beyond the necessary investment in building the latter.) And there's a limited regional extent of where you'd traditionally find the conditions for seasonal ice. Now of course with pro hockey, you could plant a team anywhere with a proper arena. And while the South, Southwest, and West Coast may not have the historical presence of hockey that Canada/Northeast/Great Lakes has, those cities certainly have a fair share of migrants from the latter. So you could conceivably market teams to plenty of hockey fans anyway. And since the '90s the NHL has pretty much tried that with multiple franchise relocations and expansions ... - LA market: come on, it's the 2nd biggest metro, they're gonna have 2 teams in every sport anyway (now including the NFL). - Other major "non-winter" markets: San Jose and Dallas seem to be doing fine; Atlanta moved to Winnipeg after about a decade; Miami and Phoenix have struggled with attendance for the past several years (at least since the last strike/lockout), and didn't the Coyotes go bankrupt at one point? - Other midsize/small "non-winter" markets: Tampa and Nashville seem to be doing fine; Carolina (Raleigh/Durham) struggles with attendance despite no major-league competition. In that context, the expansion to Las Vegas made no sense to me. (I always thought the NBA would get there first.) As others have suggested, I think the league could do just as well or better in the Northwest (the Portland Winterhawks get pretty good crowds), or some smaller Canadian markets like Quebec City or Hamilton (though the weak Canadian dollar may be a factor there). These are just my thought as a non-hockey fan but a casual sports expansion/relocation geek.
Forget the weak Canadian dollar. The weak Canadian crowds in places like Quebec are why they lost teams in the first place. The "struggling" teams in the south are doing just as well as the old Canadian teams that moved ever did.
We're far off topic here. But, in defense of Canadian markets, the details of why teams left were: Winnipeg: No arena with modern amenities and revenue streams, and a small capacity. Quebec: No arena with modern revenue streams, no gov't desire to build one then (There is a new one now), and a weak Canadian dollar, coupled with no salary cap, led to no way to compete either on the ice or on the ledger sheet. The argument against new Canadian teams now is: A new team won't increase the National TV revenue by very much, because most Canadians are already watching. The one place with an arena (Quebec) is a government town with not as many possible corporate sponsors as American markets. On the other hand, the argument for Vegas and Seattle is: 1- There are owners willing to pay the expansion price (500M to Vegas, and 650M for Seattle). 2- To the other owners, Seattle fills in the American TV footprint. 3- For Vegas, specifically, they never run out of appetite for events, and the team owner has a share in the arena ownership as well, which offers some cushion in the case of a downturn in local tickets. As for the 'struggling teams in the south'...... 1- Tampa Bay Lightning. Not struggling at all 2- Nashville Predators: Not struggling either 3- Dallas Stars: Nor are they. but.... 4- Carolina Hurricanes: Recently sold. Small local fanbase. Small crowds. But ownership has management rights to the arena, which are lucrative. The organization does fine. 5- Florida Panthers: Small local fanbase. However, about 2 years ago, the County, which owns the arena, signed off on a commitment to support the team to the tune of 12M/yr currently (which number reduces in the nest several years). With that, they are solvent now, and have 10 or so years to develop the local fanbase 6- Arizona Coyotes: Small local fanbase. History of weak ownership. Losing lots of money. This is a struggling franchise, with the possibility of a relocation in the next couple of years.
Florida is interesting. They had a big attendance jump in 98 with the new arena, and a big drop in 14-15 that I can't explain. Other than that, they were consistently in the high 14k to low 16k attendance from 96-97 to 12-13. The recovery from the plummet in 14-15 has been okay, and for the most part they've pulled in more fans than the franchise ever did in Quebec. Arizona has done well at times, but right now they're in an arena in the Glendale area and I believe they've said that 85% of their season ticket base is in the Tempe/Mesa area. On weeknights that trip can be 1.5-2 hours if rush hour is bad. They did better in their early years when they had a downtown arena. 5 of their 10 years downtown they averaged over 15k and were one of the few teams to recover from the lockout well. The first year in their current arena, which was also the first year with Gretzky coaching, they averaged 15k. They haven't done that again in the 12 years since. Location is a huge deal for them, even though they are on pace to increase their average by about 1k this year.
The fan base is larger than most think. In a league where more at least half the teams make the playoffs, the Hurricanes have missed the playoffs eight straight years. If you go back and look their attendance was fine last decade when they were making the playoffs every 2-3 seasons. If you flipped a coin eight straight times and lost, you might lose interest in the game, too.
Well, I don't hold it against them. If it weren't for their lack of support, followed by management's ineptness in Colorado (which, even then, seemed like the perfect NHL market, making the Rockies' tenure an even more dramatic failure), I wouldn't have my Devils. And the three Cups. And probably my love of hockey, which is tied to my team.
Florida: It doesn't seem right to compare BB&T in Broward County, capacity 20,000+ with the old Pepsi Colisee in QC, capacity 15000+. But, even if you do, the important thing to remember is that the needed metric is NOT attendance. It's $$ from attendance. And, even deeper, it's $$ from attendance compared with $$ from attendance for the other teams. Arizona: In Phoenix, the attendance went from 15,500 in the first you to 13000+ in the last year in Phoenix. In Glendale, the first year, attendance was 15,400+ decreasing to 12,400 or so, and then a bump to 13,400 or so when new ownership came. Since then it has again slipped. Source: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7450 Not to argue. Arizona as a market has not had anywhere near a fair shot since the team first arrived. However, it is simply not true that a new team in Quebec CIty would have attendance problems. Revenue problems? maybe. Attendance? Not in any way. Regardless, those things don't really reflect on NASL or its markets or its future. I can't wait for this opinion from the court......
Branching from hockey to soccer: I've often marveled at the NHL's strength despite not having a great TV deal (certainly not compared the NFL, MLB, NBA, college football & basketball, heck even NASCAR). But I think the 200+ junior hockey teams in every corner of the country shouldn't be overlooked in attracting fans to the sport. I was amazed at how high school kids were filling arenas in the South. And good hockey players these days are coming out of California and Texas. The Univ Nebraska-Omaha's hockey team had a great player come out of the San Diego area- Austin Ortega. He tied the NCAA record for game winning goals (23). This year he signed a contract with Anaheim and is playing AHL hockey for San Diego. What does this have to do with soccer? I think it points out how important building the pyramid is in growing the game. As a kid, we never went to the Kansas City Royals (3 hours away). But we went to the Omaha Royals AAA team a lot- which is why I followed the KC Royals. I hope the USSF and the various leagues will get this figured out so there is continued growth with d2, d3, and amateur leagues. Let's not just flush viable teams in viable markets (ie, Jax and Indy, etc.). Find a home for them. Build that pyramid!
There are 25-30 expansion teams planning to join USL, PDL or NPSL over the next 2 seasons plus NISA and USL 2 and the NASL re-expansion.
Three weeks no opinion from the court. It leaves an interesting situation..... NASL needs an injunction to survive. They have NO Div 2 sanctioning. Really no sanctioning at all. That means that the league can't really advertise to its potential expansion markets/owners that it will be a D2 league. So, the new markets are in sort of limbo. The longer that continues the more difficult it will be for those places IF they do get it up and going. Meanwhile, USSF isn't being in any way inconvenienced by the delay. On another side of the decision: There is possibly an argument to be had that if the court issues an injunction, the court risks ending up administering US Soccer itself, which I am sure it doesn't want to do.... I think I am leaning more and more toward an opinion agreeing with the lower court decision, but with more detail.