The only way that MLS will be able to "force" someone into buying in via expansion is to have solid ownership in place for all of the other teams. That's the only way that other leagues have gotten expansion fees as well...the only way the league can get the leverage it needs is to have the existing teams under solid ownership.
No, they don't have any rules, per se, on indoor stadia, but they do have rules on the surface teams play on. A couple years ago they approved "field turf," which is the second or third generation of artificial turf product, for use in international competitions. Also, the Metros play on it, if I recall correctly, once the Giants/Jets seasons start.
If the team isn't rebranded to Club America USA or anything like that, the Quakes moving to Houston doesn't bother me too much. While I think it'd be nice to keep them in the Bay Area to keep the rivalry with the Galaxy going, it'd create a rivalry between Dallas. Then the Galaxy can focus on their MLS-created rivalry with Goats USA. It'd be a shame though, really. The Earthquakes fans really love their team, and it'd be a real tough loss for them.
And it was a fantastic World Cup venue! The tray system worked flawlessly. The only down side was the extreme humidity which was exacerbated by very high ambient temperatures. But with almost 80,000 in attendance for USA vs Switzerland the atmosphere was electric. But the Silverdome is scheduled to close at the end of this year. It will likely be imploded in the near future. And I doubt that an MLS club would be enough to save it. Also, the atmosphere for Detroit Express matches in 1978-1980 was never very good in that building. And that was with Trevor Francis and an average crowd of about 12,000.
Think back 10 years...Kansas City was part of the original 10. Also, in terms of meaning something to the league for being original 10, KC started out as the Wiz and changed to the Wizards after year 1, and has kept a pretty similar color scheme throughout. The Quakes were the Clash with a completely different color scheme, and decided to go with an old look from a failed league and act like the whole Clash thing never happened. So in the terms of your arguement, maybe we should keep KC.
I knew someone would point out that the Wizards were also part of the Original 10. However it's what Kansas City has done in the ten years to not intigrate itself as much into the power structure of the league (though of course it's won an MLS Cup too) that makes the difference between San Jose and Kansas City.
Talk about a discussion that couldn't be farther from what really matters with regard to these teams.
FWIW, KC leads SJ in Championships 3-2 and has a better overall (10 year) record than SJ. Or, looking at it slightly differently, KC has the third best average finish position in the league, while SJ ranks ninth. One could argue that KC has been much more a mover/shaker in the power structure of the league than SJ. You seem to (conveniently) forget the absolutely abysmal performance of the SJ team during the first five years of the league. (aside: Chicago, in its 8 years, has more wins than SJ has in its 10) [yeah, I know, totally irrelevant]
No, not at all, I'm willing to admit I was wrong in the San Jose/KC power balance. Of course it doesn't change my feelings that if anyone Kansas City should be moved and not San Jose.
It's not about who should be moved though. In the end, neither team will be where they are right now. Neither owner wants their team. AEG gets to dump San Jose, which they've wanted to do for a while, and Televisa gets into MLS. Everybody wins. The only people who can be blamed for San Jose being moved is the rich people of San Jose, who apparently want no part of the franchise. And to all the people who say "you might be next. Look at your attendance.", you're idiots. Not only do we have a stadium going up, but AEG doesn't want to dump us. In fact, every piece of information I've recieved (unfortunately) says that AEG won't even conisider selling us in the future. Local ownership group or not. They've been trying to dump you guys for a long time. I'm sorry if you're surprised that MLS isn't going to collapse without your presence. Good bye Kasbah, it looks like The Mystics are now the gayest supporters group in MLS. At least for now.
MetroStars play on the (crappy) field turf year round, except for games in which someone pays for grass to be brought in (they did this for the Argentina v Peru game last year). I wish San Jose would stay, I hate when teams move. If they do move, treat San Jose as folded (meaning all players can become free agents if they choose) and the new team as an expansion team, but no expansion draft.
How would that be even remotely fair? The new team would be at an even bigger disadvantage than Chivas and SAlt Lake were.
I actually thought the stadium was nearly a done deal for Johnson City, KS. Which, of course, doesn't do anything to build up my position in the original argument.
Who cares about being fair? It might work out for them. They could still draft players, use allocations, all that good stuff. They'd probably keep most of the team, and if it's a Mexican-affiliate team they would have room for their own guys.
Someone else mentioned the Seattle Pilots becoming the Milwaukee Brewers; the current Brewers are actually the second version of the club. The original Milwaukee Brewers moved to St. Louis to become the Browns in 1902 and later the Orioles in 1954. But those Orioles are also a second version. The original Baltimore Orioles moved in 1903 to New York, where they eventually settled on being called the New York Yankees.
My Mr MS You have a grasp of the English language that almost surpasses your spirit of generosity. I suggest you work on both, it'll serve you well in life. In the meantime, the Fire will have a stadium to serve the team proud. Let's hope that Fire fans will take to the opportunity in a better spirit than you. Btw, I am neither a 'van', 'fat' or an 'assplug', not that it matters to your argument which, frankly, is both adolescent and churlish. The MLS deserves better than you, and in 'truthitude' it will get better than you and your pathetic grimed-fingered attempts at being smart. Now...go and scratch your other bollock.
What makes this San Jose situation so amusing is knowing that the instant the Quakes are bought by C.A. and moved to Houston, SF/Oakland/San Jose jumps up in the top 5 of expansion candidate cities. Northern California, is just one of those media locations that requires a presence from a MAJOR LEAGUE SPORT. For my money, it's shortsighted of MLS to sell off a team now, only to put an expansion team there later on. I say, pay your dues now and reap the rewards later. Some markets come around easier than others.
NFL, Los Angeles. It doesn't always work out the way you would think. MLS owners may be more inclined to give an untested market a chance.
Except the NFL already has the huge tv contract in place. The less bigger markets MLS has the tougher its going to be to get a better tv deal.
MLS is so far from having meaningful TV revenue, it's really not relevant and will not be for some time. Maybe this is a factor for the 19th/20th teams are added in about 2114. Re: the NFL issue: The NFL has to take a huge hit by not being in LA when their tv deal renews. This isn't just a theoretical future thing for them. Not being in LA costs them ratings on the national scale which costs them big $.