I think that's just plain wrong. Sure, team owners suffer their own losses, but the losses of a single club are the losses of the league. NASL folded for two major reasons: 1) they over expanded and 2) their team owners failed to check their spending. Teams got moved, teams went under, everyone lost a ton of money and the league became a joke because they were doing whatever they could to recoup their losses instead of focusing on putting great soccer on the field. The old NASL system is simply not sustainable, especially in the current economic climate. There is a reason MLS, A-League, and the J-League started with a small number of teams and expanded VERY slowly. If the NASL owners have got any brains, they'll remember that the rashness of USL officials in over expanding their own league has led to the failure of 35 clubs since the league's inception and the current state of USL-1. *Just a note, I've said in several different places on this board that the quote in which NASL team owners and league officials said they wanted to "challenge" the MLS was taken out of context. They don't want to compete with MLS because the MLS has a more stable (due to its constrictive rules and regulations, like the salary cap) league, and because they understand that they're second division. What they are dedicated to is putting the best quality product on the field and promoting/protecting their teams in non-MLS markets.
So you suggest teams that do well should suck up the losses for teams that are bleeding money for the sake of the league? I think that would hold back the level of play more than anything. I say let the teams that are failing die. Find out where you can have good second division teams with good financial footing and go from there. Those three leagues started out quite differently. Japan already had a good number of club teams that had to earn their way into the J-League before even playing a game. MLS we all know well and the owners just couldn't take on expansion teams after the Florida teams folded for the sake of staying afloat. They bragged about being prudent, but as soon as Beckham signed and there was investment interest, expansion took off. 80% more teams in six years is not slow growth. And the A-League is new, but is already talking about getting enough teams to form a ladder structure.
Don't forget the Oakland Buccaneers of the ASL in 1976. Oh yeah, Pittsburgh did have a team in the NPSL in 1967; the Pittsburgh Phantoms.
it would not surprise me to see seattle pick up a spot in nasl-- there's lots of interest in soccer in the area and locating a team in a community outside seattle would be a good move IMO-- i believe that the sounders played a season or 2 in the USl in renton b4 moving to Qwest stadium-- not sure how successful it was vancouver is playing a part, to some undefined amount at this time-- probably sending some promising under 23 players for more experience-, for the edmonton nasl franchise starting in 2011
They should consider San Francisco. There are so many soccer fans here who have no interest in supporting a team in San Jose and if they could find a place to play would probably do pretty well. I think the area could support both NASL and MLS. There are a lot of football fans here.
August 2009- Kemsley buys Cosmos (New York Times) November 2009- Pele rumored to be named Cosmos president (Jewish Chronicle)
It would basically like being in the same market. If the Sounders wants to develop a surrounding market as a feeder, Spokane would be better. But if is going to be Tacoma, I hope in the Stars (like in the old MISL time).
That was St. Louis, and they were an indoor team. Cleveland were called the Stokers (the ASL team was the Stars, and Cobras).
No offense but the Victory didn't exactly pan out in SF. Not saying a team couldn't if it was better run than they were, but it is a concern. Besides, it seems to me the Bay Area soccer community needs to unify behind SJ at this point. The MLS team is already an attendance concern without further segmenting the potential fanbase. Particularly not before the Quakes get their own stadium. I'm sure there are alot of SF soccer fans who would make the trek to SJ if they had a nice stadium to see the team play in.
I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread that we have already killed in the Quakes threads but as long as they market as if they are only a south bay team and have the stadium so far away from the center of the bay area (not San Francisco but the entire bay area) they are going to create their own problems. What you say maybe true but I personally know many that will not support a San Jose team. I would like another team here, personally I enjoyed the Victory games as bad as they were far more than the Quakes because they were our team and were fun to support. I think an NASL team run properly would do very well here.
The Crocketteers do want to see top-flight football in the Alamo City. If that is Division 2 in the form of a successful NASL league, we will be 110% behind it. I strongly believe that NASL in SA is more tangible than USL in SA. The Spurs(NBA) have USL rights locked up and who knows when they will ever act on the sport.
Well I guess we'll see. As time goes on and the A's and Niners move south the "center" of the Bay Area's sporting culture will probably be migrating south with those 2 teams. Might just change how people feel about driving to San Jose.
They played one season in Renton in 1999. They moved back to Memorial Stadium in Seattle for the 2000-2002 seasons. 2003 was the first season at Qwest. There's a PDL team in Tacoma, the Tacoma Tide. They play at a HS football stadium. A Div II team could potential play at the Tacoma Dome, which doesn't have any tenants currently AFAIK. Not sure how well "outdoor" soccer would work in the T-Dome, though.
I know it has been done before in the Tacoma Dome but how? As the old saying goes, if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle. There's nowhere to play and there's nowhere to build.
Here's footage... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq1uGtv64_s"]YouTube- 1994 Seattle Sounders[/ame]
Tulsa, OKC, Jacksonville (FL), Memphis, Hartford, Calgary, Oakland, San Diego, Vegas, Detroit, San Antonio and Cleveland are all missing from the NASL (and aren't in MLS). Did I miss any?