NASL still trying to separate itself from Traffic

Not much of a surprise. Traffic must have an enormous amount of money invested into the league. None of the criminal accusations revolve around their actions with NASL, so they are not going to simply walk away. They will need to be bought out, and the question becomes do the owners see any value in buying out Traffic?

 

You know I wouldn't be surprised if all this expanding into questionable areas (OKC, Miami, and PR) is due to the need to create some extra money fast to pay off Traffic.

 

I wonder who dude is listening to that told him NASL and traffic had broken up, Traffic still holds NASL stock with veto power on some economic areas (important areas for sure).

 

Or Dan, that is where these three ownerships wanted their franchises. We can cherry pick the markets we think the league should be in; that's fun. I don't think the NASL is in a position to tell any ownership group "you can't be market A, you must be in market B".

The league wants/needs more franchises; these owners were approved, will all three succeed? It's doubtful but at least they have the proper capitalization for the losses they're about to incur.

Does the league need to pay off Traffic? Or is this Traffic's revenue [and it's actually legal revenue!].

 

It's unknown how the revenue is shared, but firms almost never just give up shares in an entity, especially when they have most likely sunk many mirrions into those shares. Sure, after the criminal indictments were made public, they stated that Traffic would no longer be involved in the league's operations, but we all know that was in name only. As long as they have equity, they have influence.

 

The business end of soccer is no place for 98% of BS posters.

 

Now that enough time has passed and the dust has settled a bit I am sure we will start hearing more about Traffic.

As you simply stated....anyone who thinks they are just walking away is naive beyond belief.

NASL may simply just have to live with them for a while....maybe for a long while.

 

Yes the league most certainly does and will have to pay off Traffic. It's bad for business to be associated with that organization. With regards to the new expansion teams I'm of the opinion that they should vet markets as well as owners. To simple focus on one side of the equation (the money people) without looking at the market as well is foolish and short sided. If the new expansion teams fail in the next few seasons the damage to the league would most certainly out weigh the expansion fee money the league pocketed.

 

On the flip side of the argument, one big weakness for the NASL is the lack of teams. Allow a few shaky teams, in what you see as weak markets, to enter the league. Sure, they may not survive long term, but 1 or 2 of them might. Meanwhile, they are paying fee's to the league, bringing new regions into the league, all the while making NASL more viable to future expansion groups, without occupying any of the more attractive markets.
What exactly does NASL have to lose if these three new clubs do not succeed long term as opposed to not allowing entry in the first place? Other than a minor hit to the league's image, nothing. What do they have to gain? Expansion fee's; wider footprint; buffer from lost franchises (what would the league look like after losing ATL and SAS without these expansion teams?); ability to bring more talent into the league etc.
While we can all agree that NASL needs to bring in better franchises in order to achieve better long-term viability, bringing in these expansion clubs cost the league nothing, and could act as a bridge towards a stabilization process.

 

Fair enough, I may be a little overly concerned about the viability of these franchises but I will say that IF these teams fail my concern then becomes that future possible owners will go to the USL with their money instead of the NASL and the NASL will seem like a fools errand to any solid investor. Then teams will begin to be replaced by other shaky teams and the league sets itself on a downward spiral, maybe I'm just a pessimist but these things concern me. Also people have to remember that the USL is setting itself up as a competitor to the NASL and due to its national footprint and partnership with MLS it may become more desirable to future owners if these teams go south for the NASL.

 

If it happens to often...teams failing....then yes, it will be a problem and possibly fatal.

The league needs teams however. If they add six teams and only two become solid franchises it would still be worth it for them right now. You can't take a huge PR hit if your image isn't exactly stellar.

As long as Peterson can dig up people who will spend cash I think this will be the plan moving forward. Throw whatever they can at the wall and see what sticks.

While USL will continue to grow they aren't as close to D2 as some think they are IMO. Maybe in four or five years, and that is what NASL is probably trying to stay ahead of right now.....that time frame.

 

That seems eerily similar to the old NASL plan and I'm not very comfortable with that, I hope every one or two of the teams work out I'm just worried they won't.

 

Unfortunately they don't really have a choice. Without these three teams, we would be looking at a 10-team NASL this year, and a 9-team NASL next year. In that case, how attractive would NASL be to all of these rumored potential expansion groups for 2017/18?
Because the league needs to start attracting investors NOW, these shaky choices do nothing but help draw new investors now, while also helping the league survive long enough to bring these more viable expansion targets online. If they are able to bring in a few solid new franchises into the league in 2017/18, losing the MFC/Rayo/PRFC trio at that point will be no big deal.
Believe it or not, Chivas USA, despite failing miserably, was the turning point for MLS. Could Rayo or Puerto Rico be that turning point for NASL?

 

Yup, as I have stated many times....they don't have much choice.

CUSA was a big step forward....a new investor after almost closing shop!!!!!! They were the first to hop back on board.

For me, the ADIDAS deal was MLS's Midway.

 

Many talk as if all three new teams are destined to fail. I have a feeling, and I don't know why, that at least one of these teams will surprise us. It must be more than capital investment; to purchase a NASL team now is to make a commitment to the league and to your community. Each of these must know that. I can't imagine anyone doing these to make short-term money.

 

As long as two out of everything three expansion teams are solid long term teams the NASL will be fine. If it wasn't for MLS2 teams USL would not look half as stable as it does. Almost all of their new independent expansion teams are in it solely for MLS (what happens when they get passed over by MLS?), and some are having similar issues as NASL teams (Rochester, Austin).

 

To be fair Austin would be playing this year if it wasn't for their homefield being washed away in a flood. I don't think any NASL team ever had a similar problem. Rochester though is very similar to the Silverbacks issues but the Rhinos thankfully have found a good owner to replace the outgoing one. The MLS2 teams have helped but they've gotten some good independent expansion teams as well Cincinnati, San Antonio and Reno in 2017 are going to be good additions. In the end this is the outside pressure that the NASL is feeling and concerns me if these new teams fail.

 

I don't understand why you felt the need to bring the USL into a discussion about the NASL and Traffic (although I have my suspicions), but anyway....

Austin is a stadium issue. Rochester was under USL control for nine days before a new owner took over (two other potential owners were interested, one submitted a proposal to the USL). Atlanta was hardly a similar case.

I have no idea how you came to that first conclusion, and the follow up question makes no sense.

 

Maybe you should actually read the thread it might make more sense. I wasn't the first person to mention USL.

I didn't make the comparison to Atlanta. Yes Austin wasn't able to secure a stadium, I would include that in a stability issue. Rochester had an ownership issue, much like Carolina. Atlanta's issue was an MLS moving in issue, which any independent USL team would have a similar issue if they stayed independent also. I would not put that in the realm of stability issues. No NASL or USL team would be able to survive an MLS team on their own in the majority of markets.

Cincinatti, Lousiville, Charlotte, Austin, Sacramento, and San Antonio either publicly have said they are going for MLS (although I don't totally believe Louisville) or is commonly accepted on BS as trying for MLS.

 

The silverbacks have been unstable since well before MLS came along.

 

The recent new independent USL teams:

(2017) Reno
(2016) San Antonio
(2016) Cincinnati
(2015) Charlotte
(2015) Tulsa
(2015) Colorado Springs
(2015) Louisville
(2015) Austin
(2014) Saint Louis*
(2014) Oklahoma City
(2014) Sacramento
(2014) Arizona United

*Saint Louis is talking about MLS but the owners of the USL team are not.

Your list is not "almost all". That's about half.

 

Not to continue to digress into a USL discussion, but true or false: Austin's stadium was, as of last August 27, fixed and remains so to this day?

If true, the Aztex' explanation for sitting out seems specious.

As for the NASL, yes, at some point you need to show strength and viability to attract investors. (Unless, of course, you institute pro/rel, in which case, problem solved.) If more people came, more people would go, as Yogi supposedly said.

I am not high on Puerto Rico's chances (can you tell) because no one proven is in charge and the island's economy is melting down. I am only slightly more optimistic about Miami.

And losing San Antonio Who Did Not, In Fact, Relocate To Las Vegas Yet FC and FC Atlanta Who They Were Going To Have To Address At Some Point Anyway has not helped.

I don't think there's a 2/3 rule of thumb or anything. At this point, you need solid franchises and cannot afford clubs that fail. But, as Zoidberg mentions, they are in a bit of a delicate spot where they need teams to realistically convince other investors.

Is that sustainable? No idea. Probably not long-term.

 

People keep talking about the flood but the unavailability of House Park in 2016 was not the reason given for Austin going on hiatus. The Aztex were on a one-year waiver allowing them to use House Park in 2015. That waiver expired and they haven't come up with a different solution. The Aztex do say that the flood slowed down their search for a new stadium because they had to scramble to find another venue for most of 2015. That may or may not be true but House Park reopening doesn't give any indication of it.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/...ark-2016-return-2017-following-stadium-issues

 

Yes, I didn't get that part of his statement, and I especially didn't get the "are in it solely for MLS” conclusion. Having plans and/or ambitions of getting to MLS is one thing, but being in the USL solely for that reason?

Then there is the "what happens when they get passed over by MLS?" part. He's assuming they'll all get passed over with the "when", and "what happens" if any or all of them do? Are they supposed to just fold up their tents and disappear?