Real Expansion Candidates...

Funny how between the last announcement and this comment, there have been a few days... but it's still 365 days.

If anything is announced, it'll be at the next MLS Cup. So, since they're talking about going longer, it'll be more than 365 days.

Don't set your countdown until after next year's schedule comes out.

OH, and for the record, he said 'Minneapolis St. Paul'. Most folks probably count them as a single possibility, but I figured I'd make it obvious.

And, *sigh*, with the exception of Cleveland, Tulsa and OKC, it's just the usual list of suspects.

 

Here's what I think of each candidate

Atlanta- demands excellence of its sports teams, although it will give them a chance to get off the ground. Should get a chance IMO.

Maybe, but it's a very small market IMO.

Concur

As for the rest, toss up. OKC should get in though

 

Mpls/St. Paul border each other and their downtowns are no more than 12 miles apart. That is one possibility, not two - just to be clear.

 

Don's city list and his three expansion requirements.

In that same ESPN chat:

http://dynamic.espn.go.com/espn/chat/chatESPN?event_id=2590

Exactly what constitutes a "soccer facility plan" remains to be seen, but it's possible that MLS isn't requiring a SSS - at least not initially. It's not clear whether he meant a plan for building a soccer-specific facility, or a plan for an existing facility that includes soccer. As much as we'd like to see the former, I think it's fairly obvious that the latter is much more likely.

If you look at DG's city list, the following markets have (or soon will have) new NFL stadiums that, IIRC, have been designed to accommodate soccer: Houston, Philly, Cleveland, Seattle.

If you consider DG's three requirements, one could conclude reasonably that any of those NFL stadiums could easily provide the basis for a facility plan for an MLS team.

One could also conclude that an NFL owner would have the financial resources and community influence to qualify as a "committed owner." Obviously, not all NFL owners are equally desirable in the MLS playground - e.g., Bob McNair would be better than Bud Adams, but you get the picture.

I'm not arguing here that any of those new NFL stadium cities will, or ought to be, expansion markets.

I am arguing here that those new NFL stadium markets will likely merit serious consideration because (1) SSS are unrealistic requirements if the league intends to expand to multiple markets in the next few years, (2) the new wave of NFL stadiums provide adequate facilities, and (3) some NFL owners may prove quite acceptable to Phil and Lamar.

 

Atlanta - I have it on the highest authority (well, DavidP) that there is a large carpetbagger population in the area, which doesn't care for the Atlanta teams. And this is what drives down their attendences.

Rochester - Supposedly Pae Tec Park is on death's door. The city or county wants to keep the cash cow Rhinos in Frontier Field, and has asked the stadium authority to study the feasibility of renovation.

Minneapolis/St. Paul - You've go to build a stadium first, and forget about having the MLS Cup there. You'd need the guys with heat blowers clearing up the lines.

Cleveland - Unless someone is going to build a stadium, Browns Stadium, just eyeballing it, looks wide enough for a regulation field.

Philadelphia - Unlike CBS, Lincoln Financial Field looks like it will be too narrow. If you want to replace the turf at Franklin Field, there you go. No modern amenities though.

Houston - Reliant Stadium is MLS compliant, per houstontexans.com. Otherwise, you could play at Robertson Stadium at the University of Houston, which is wide enough.

Seattle - Seahawks Stadium looks wide enough, has a roof, but has Fieldturf. Apparently that's Holmgren's doing.

Tulsa/Oklahoma City - New stadium, period. Skelly Stadium in Tulsa is too narrow and there's nothing in OKC to adapt.

 

While it would be great if MLS' expansion teams all had their own new SSS's, I think there's a good chance that the first few MLS expansion teams will go to NFL owners looking to increase the utilization of their stadiums.

Other than the 12 or so home games each NFL team plays each year, the only other times the stadiums are used are for the occasional large-scale religious function (Promise Keepers, Billy Graham, etc), big-name concert, and perhaps a college or high school football game or two.

So when your new $500 million NFL stadium is only used maybe 30 times a year, it makes sense for an NFL owner to seriously look into aquiring an MLS team in order to add 15 or so home dates during the otherwise fairly inactive spring and summer seasons.

I think the key to getting some new investors in MLS will be to stem the losses the league reportedly suffers in a few of its key markets -- NY/NJ, DC, etc. If losses at these franchises can be substantially lessened, if not omitted, I'd expect to see several NFL owners invest in MLS and acquire expansion teams.

 

The league doesn't lose money with the Metros and DC. AEG does.
And that is IF they are losing that much money. (Which I think is completely overstated.)

The league loses money from having to operate teams themselves (Mutiny, Dallas).

Dallas losing $1 million this year is not the same as DC United losing $1 million. AEG will cover the DC United loss, whereas the Dallas loss is shared by all the "investors" in the league.

 

First, Franklin Field is owned by Penn, they have a track that can't be removed because they host a major track meet each year, it's in an area with no parking or easy access, and Penn has no desire to replace the turf with grass because it is a multipurpose facility for them. FF could be a wonderful soccer venue, but the track means the field will be narrow and with it being a tough place to get to attendance would suffer.

LFF has been designed with soccer in mind. The Eagles have said on numerous occasions that they hope to get an MLS team and international soccer events at the new stadium. That was a key to getting the funding because spending all of that cash for 10 dates a year made no sense.

Driving by the constuction, LFF looks very similar to the Razor in that the lower bowl is intimate, and the floor of the stadium is wide enough of soccer. If the Eagles invest in the team, they'll have a deal comparable to what the Revs have in terms of revenue. The problem is football lines late in the season.

I don't think Philly will ever have a SSS. The city and state just shelled out more than $600 million for the Eagles and Phillies stadia, so there is no way another facility gets built with the political climate here. I think Philly would be a good market though. I just hope Comcast doesn't get involved with the team in some way.

 

Actually, there are plans to renovate/rebuild Wantland Stadium, which is on the campus of the Univ. of Central Oklahoma, which is in Edmond, which is a suburb of OKC. If OKC gets a team, that's where it will most likely play.

Garber recently said that there would be 3 or 4 groups of investors at MLS Cup; I wonder what cities these groups are from?

 

Just want to clear something up.

Atlanta has an A-League team and it averages less than 1,000 people a game!! There is no way they could support a MLS team.

 

Re: Don's city list and his three expansion requirements.

I thought the same thing when I read that quote. DG seems to have backtracked from his earlier comments that explicitly stated that teams must have plans for a SSS to now saying that they must have a "soccer facility plan." When you consider that MLS worked with First and Goal on the design of the Seattle stadium, and the fact that Seattle is mentioned by DG as a candidate for a new franchise, it seems that MLS is definitely willing to consider soccer-friendly NFL stadia provided a solid ownership group is involved.

 

You betcha. One thing that sucks about Minnesota is that there is snow on the ground 24/7/365.

 

Because of MLS' single entity structure, an investor/operator covers about 1/2 of the losses his team incurs. The other 1/2 of the losses are covered by the league itself.

So if the MetroStars lose, say, $5 million/yr, Kraft entails a loss of $250,000, Hunt has a loss of $500,000, and AEG a loss of $4,250,000.

 

Problem with Tulsa: hard to post links to Tulsa World since they charge for any access to their archives/current stories at www.tulsaworld.com

It is possible to search archives under "MLS" and "soccer" keywords to see how many stories have come into play in the last few weeks. A story pops up about every few days in T-town. One mentioned Tulsa soccer coaches and their excitement over a proposed stadium. The other was an interview with someone from Soccer America about other cities and cites the problems, Rochester, Atlanta, Philly, etc. have had in pursuing a team.

Both Tulsa and OKC/Edmond are in the feasability study phase.

Tulsa is using half of a $215,000 fund split between the city and the chamber of commerce for its study.

A bond issue would involve a county tax (Mayor who is very much in favor of a stadium is negotiating with county officials presently) for a variety of improvements including the soccer stadium... still no news on where the stadium would locate... bond issue would most likely involve a vote of Tulsa and most of the surrounding suburbs in Tulsa county...

OKC's seems a little easier as far as passing an actual bond issue since they only have to deal with the affluent suburb of Edmond and costs would be less due to the existing facilities at Wantland Stadium. However, OKC's proposal has to deal with Edmond's three high schools and the Univ of Central Oklahoma...

No real news until feasability studies are complete and a detailed proposal is sent to voters in Tulsa County and Edmond-- OKC's plan touts a partnership between City of Edmond, EPS, and Univ of Central Okla... Tulsa's is being billed as a "public/private partnership"... Skelly Stadium has NEVER been part of the current set of proposals...

Interesting that Mayor LaFortune of Tulsa mentioned a season ticket "threshold" of 7500 while OKC last week said MLS officials told them 6,000... hmmm...

 

My take:

Atlanta:
The Silverbacks stadium is way too far away from the city. This is a large reason why nobody comes to those games. But, the summer in Atlanta isn't always the most enjoyable place, its warm but also kinda muggy and can get very hot. To be a real contender it would need a centrally located stadium easily accessible to public transportation and a "committed" owner. Who knows, maybe Bernard is a big soccer fan.

Philly:
This market is an absolute must from a media coverage point of view. Also, it has a huge population of loyal fans and a strong soccer following. The problem is there's nowhere to build a freakin stadium. I wouldn't mind them in the new Eagles stadium, but Lurie doesn't really want a soccer team, he just wants rents for his football stadium. Maybe the rumors of a publisher (Annenberg?) looking to get into MLS could be the trick. I hope so, because this is an essential market for MLS.

Houston:
Not really sure. It follows soccer but is a very hot and muggy place in the summer. If there were a stadium owned by the I/O, then yes, but otherwise, probably would recommend holding this market off this round of expansion and revisit it when it has a stadium.

Oklahoma City and Tulsa:
Either one would be fine, but they would be the weakest market and it might cause difficulties down the road. There are a lot of very wealthy potential owners, so it's a viable option. Building a good SSS would sure help. This has a better chance of happening because I'd anticipate that many of the frontrunners will hit snags.

Minneapolis St. Paul:
Excellent market in need of summer activities. If a convenient stadium can be found that produces strong revenue streams then this becomes a likely candidate.

Rochester:
Probably not. It could easily be the "Buffalo Bills" of MLS and be a great one, but I suspect that if the state of New York gets a second team it will be in Queens/Brooklyn. I think MLS is hoping Rochester gets its stadium so that MLS can use it as a fallback plan.

Cleveland:
Strong market with avid fans, only lacking committed owner and a good stadium lease. If those are in place, it should happen.

Seattle:
This is the most likely scenario. They have supported other sports very well and have an excellent new NFL stadium that should provide a good home for an MLS team. There are people who essentially promised an MLS team there when building that stadium, and I think there is enough mutual interests there to get it done.

My guesses would be Seattle and Oklahoma in 2005. Philadelphia and Minnesota in 2007. But what the heck do I know.

-Tron

 

Oh yeah? Oh yeah?

Well, yeah.

 

If I was in charge of expansion I would give Oklahoma City and Miami teams because Miami shouldn't have lost their team. Something about that market/area tells me soccer could be huge there and OKC you need to put a team in a place where their isn't currently a pro team so they dont have to compete with anyone. Besides its possible that OKC will get a NHL team some day because they were rumored to in the past and they have a new arena now. OKC can be like Columbus NHL and MLS teams nice combo.

 

For me one of the more telling statements from Garber's ESPN chat was "soccer facility plan" as opposed to soccer specific stadia.

I think MLS may realize that, for now, to get into markets like Cleveland, Philly, Houston, Seattle they are going to have to go into one of the new football stadiums that have just been, or about to be, put up.

If Invesco type leases, or better, can be worked out with those stadiums an I/O may be more willing to come aboard.

It may be easier to get a committed owner this way than expect them to pay league entrance cost plus putting up money for, and going through the process of getting a SSS built

 

As has been mentioned before, you can't use A-League attendance as a judge for potential MLS attendance.

Evidently, you don't know what's been happening down in A-town that has caused this attendance downslide (not really your fault; you don't live here). The owners upped the ticket price to $15 (and you couldn't sit in the center section; that was reserved for both season ticket holders ), and they ran off the family types by going after the 20-something party-boy crowd (who, BTW, never really showed up), and doing away with a lot of the stuff that brought the families out (they brought some of it back later, but it was too little, too late). They brought in a local DJ who treated the fans to loud, baudy antics, and allowed drunks to get up and make total idiots out of themselves. In short, the 'Backs became a country-club hobby for their jet-setter owner and his buddies.

And that's on top of the fact that they re-invent the team almost every year, and that plays havoc with consistency. And if that weren't enough, there are Rookie League baseball teams that do more marketing than the 'Backs have done, coupled with the fact that, as DigitalTron mentioned, the stadium is too far away from the fanbase.

Most of the games are played at night, so the heat really isn't a problem. What is a problem is that most of Atlanta doesn't know when or were they are played. And, with the antics of the owners this past season, many of those who have shown up in the past may not even care anymore. I would hope that whoever stepped up to the plate to bring MLS to A-Town would know better.

 

still another parting shot

The main thing about Atlanta is, unless there is a stadium and an owner (forget about Bernie Marcus or Ted Turner; their money is tied up in other stuff), it's all a moot point. We have neither, so it's useless to squawk about how bad a sports town Atlanta is, or how good the potential fanbase is.

"Transplants" don't support Atlanta teams, plain and simple, and a great fanbase that nevers hears a peep out of the Silverbacks would hear about an MLS franchise, because they'd do the necessary marketing, if they knew what was good for them. But we have neither owner nor stadium, and the potential for either is not great, so just give it a rest. It ain't happenin' any time soon. I'd rather see Seattle or somebody get one first.

 

Why the hell not?

 

all i want is miami to get an expansion team.
i miss da chanting during the game.

 

LFF's design is different and better than the big razor's because it's seats are placed on a higher angle than most stadia, and there is an overhang that is considerably larger than any in the NFL(designed to hold in as much noise as possible, which can either be boo's or cheers when it comes to us philly fans). If we do get a team, or even some USMNT matches, that place is gonna be great for it, believe me.