Sac Republic FC affiliation with Timbers & Quakes??

Here it is: when you stop hiding behind a juvenile pseudonym, we can talk!

Refresh my memory: was it me who said it was this Friday for sure? Last Friday? You were only off by a couple of months. But, hey, you are the man!

Now ******** off.

 

Stupid by the Quakes. Kind of makes me mad, actually.

 

The irony of Wolff blocking a Sac MLS team (or even the affiliation) when he's been complaining for years about the Giants doing the same thing to him with the A's to San Jose is palpable.

I'm a Quakes fan but even I don't think the Quakes deserve the affiliation with Sac at this point. Our FO moved at its usual glacial indecisive pace and got burned. Deal with it and perhaps even learn from it for next time.

 

I feel this situation is just like the older kid( Quakes FO) that doesn't want to play with the toys(territory), and when a new kid ( Sac Republic) comes they don't want to share those toys.

Annoying for the fans and very bad for the future of the sport.

 

Well to be fair the Quakes have "played with the toy" in the past having had games up in Sac. What didn't make sense was why they'd object after the fact to Republic going to find a new partner. What did the Quakes think would happen when they ignored them? That they'd be the one USL team still standing when the music stopped. Quakes snoozed, now they loose. End of story. And minor league team affiliations have never been all that determinative when it comes to MLB control of them beyond a short range around MLB ballparks. I doubt MLS would treat it any differently and hopefully they don't. No reason Republic has to be held back by the Quakes FO when the Timbers is obviously far more proactive and progressive on the subject of the USL.

 

It will be interesting to see if the Quakes already have their own plans in terms of USL-Pro, and what those plans are...

 

Indeed. For me it becomes doubly interesting since it's looking like San Diego is possibly getting a USL affiliate of its own in the form of RSL's minor league team. Any chance to see more local soccer, particularly if it means I can see more Quakes affiliated minor league soccer when they (whoever "they" end up being) come down is always a good thing.

 

So the Quakes have objections to a Timbers operation in Northern California, why is that being conflated as blocking Sac's MLS (or even USL) ambitions? The baseball parallels are a real stretch.

 

It is being conflated as blocking Sac's ambitions because that's exactly what it is... The Quakes reportedly were approached about an affiliation and either didn't want to come to an arrangement with Sac for a partnership. Sac then either approached or was approached by the Timbers to make a partnership which they've all but completed, and now the Quakes are objecting on dubious territorial grounds. The Quakes are blocking a partnership Sac is trying to make with an arguably better run MLS team not because they want to partner with Sac but simply because they are worried it is somehow that partnership is somehow infringing on their market. Nevermind it is well outside the 75 mile radius from Buck Shaw or the new stadium and a different market altogether in every sense of the word. And it plays into future MLS aspirations because if the Quakes are objecting to a minor league MLS affiliate presence in their extra-territory they're sure to object to Sac trying to move up as well.

The Quakes are essentially cock blocking Sac for no good reason, which is incredibly ironic given the similar situation Wolff finds himself in with his other team the A's who are trying to move into another team's immediate territory. The shoe is quite literally on the other foot with Wolff and Co. and they're behaving exactly like the San Francisco Giants. And the baseball comparison is also very apt because if you look, many MLB teams have minor league squads that are affiliated with other franchises well within their market boundaries (be it league territorial, MSA, or TV market). None of them have every had any real objection to it. Remember it's not the Timbers who would be operating in NorCal, just the Republic who would have an affiliation with the Timbers. It's a very big distinction.

 

Sacramento Republic FC exists already, unlike the San Jose Athletics. Blocking the Timbers foot in NorCal is not analogous to preventing the Sac club from building a stadium and running a good club in the way that Orlando and even Portland did before (both without MLS reserves). Don't get me wrong, I am not proud of the pettiness or lack of foresight, but there is a huge leap in equating the two situations.

Sacramento has a team, a name, a crest, and soon a stadium. They are miles ahead of San Jose MLB, which is a hypothetical concept with a reappropriated identity from several cities prior.

 

Point is what right do the Quakes have no right to stop Sac from trying to better themselves by making a partnership with an MLS side. If the Quakes didn't want to be their MLS partner, that's fine. But why are they blocking Sac from partnering with another MLS side? Particularly when doing so will likely soon put Sac at a competitive disadvantage over other USL sides since everyone else in the USL seems to be partnering up. It's petty, and frankly the Quakes basis for doing so is specious at best, that's where the real territorial comparison comes from. Wolff and Co are using "territory" as an excuse to block an MLS partnership with an existing USL side, while they're simultaneously being blocked from moving the Athletics to San Jose because the Giants are using "territory" as their excuse from blocking that move. It's not totally analogous obviously, but the irony of Wolff being denied his MLB team relocation on grounds of territory, and then simultaneously harming Sac Republic using the same basic concept is absurd. This is one fight I hope the Timbers and Republic kick the Quakes asses on. The Quakes are entirely in the wrong here. They didn't want to partner with Sac, fine, piss off and let Sac partner with someone who does want them.

Also as to the bold, "huh?" Are you suggesting the Athletics are a "re-appropriated identity"?

 

If the opposition persists for the entirety of Sacramento's push to MLS, I'll concede the two situations are alike and that this is more than a wink and nudge to remind MLS of proper compensation. As of now, this is more of the Quakes against the Timbers than the Quakes against Sacramento. I don't recall any measures taken to prevent SRFC from operating within the US soccer pyramid (not sure that would be possible), nor any territorial issues sprouting up when Garber/MLSsoccer.com pimped Sacramento for possible expansion when they were a few months beyond conception and with no games played*. Only the involvement of another western MLS team spurred this sudden roadblock.

*********in Selig won't even comment on San Jose after several years

P.S. Yes, the Athletics brand has shifted from city to city, each time geared at distinctly different markets, hence the "68" in your name, despite their foundation in 1901.

 

So your position is that the Quakes are just being obstructionist because they want compensation for the Republic partnering with the Timbers? On what grounds? The Quakes don't have any territorial claim to Sacramento according to MLS (it's outside 75 miles from their training ground). And frankly IMO they gave up any right to compensation regardless when they turned down Republic in the first place. You snooze you loose. They might have a claim to compensation if and when Sac moves up to MLS, but at this point the partnership does nothing to infringe on their territory even IF Sac is within it since Republic will exist regardless. Remember these partnerships are nothing but player transfers, it's not like the Timbers are actually impinging on their territory. Here's hoping MLS and USL tell the Quakes to pound sand.

The Athletics franchise that exists today in Oakland is the same one that was founded in 1901 in Philly by the American League. While they've changed their marketing strategy and colors over the years several times it's all the same franchise since day one (hence all their franchise records and such include KC and Philly). If they moved to SJ it would just be the 4th major move for the franchise since 1901 (and the 68 in my name isn't actually about their first year in Oakland, it's because 68 is my favorite number as it's a combo of 8 and 6, and visually I always liked 6 before 8).

 

I didn't say that's my position because there's no concrete evidence of anything at this point. I see an SI article which says, rather casually in passing, that an MLS club in Sac is "not appealing," which is equated by them to having the Timbers operate (read: market) in NorCal. To me, those are very different and should not be grouped into one overarching objection.

And if the issues stems from vague wording of territory, with regard to stadium or junior academy determining boundaries, then MLS will clarify and we'll all move on. Wolff doesn't even take on MLB when he is being bitched around, so I don't see him pressing someing like this when it is clear that SRFC have their own momentum and clear backing of other parties within MLS. The only theory I have right now is that this is barking at the ref so they get the next call, whatever that may be.

 

I didn't say there was compensation owed for the partnering setup, only that the Quakes may want a favor down the line and are making it known that this Portland affiliation will impact them adversely.

You're all reading a lot into a blurb within a bigger article when the concrete facts of this whole mess haven't even been revealed. We went from weeks of Sac and Portland buddy ownership (with no news whatsoever of the Quakes turning town Republic) to a brief mention of the Quakes playing saboteur to SRFC's whole MLS dream.

If the Quakes are confirmed to be actively stalling progress of Sac's team, then I'll happily rebuke them for it. Until then, we have a dearth of details.

And nobody drives Altamont to Sac.

 

It's almost the same amount of time - negligible. The difference is on the way to Sac, you don't have to pay the toll at the bridge across the river.

 

You first rip me for leaving the door open to interpretation of the word "compensation," as if it were a strictly clinical term in the realm of MLS, like "allocation." You finish by questioning my not seeing the potential ramifications of a dispute between existing MLS clubs, as this is clearly the slipperiest of slopes. Sounds like you're not ready for this conversation, unless your sole goal is to launch Sac right into the victim role.

As for all these sources, perhaps you'd be kind enough to share. Here, the Quakes subforum, the Tower Bridge Batallion facebook, MLS reddit, Stumptown Footy all link to the same SI article/blog, one that's not even about this territorial dispute and mentions it in the most casual and broad of terms. Excuse my doubt, but online articles would also have me believe that a basketball team will build a baseball stadium for a club they don't own at a government superfund site/active port. There were more articles, over several weeks, actually speculating about Sac leaning toward Portland, with no mention of an SJ rejection until a few days ago. Now the whole narrative has changed, minus any crucial details.

If it's soon reported elsewhere, my indignation will be unchained and Sacramento fans will have my support (which obviously counts for so much) in continuing to forge their own path. But MLS is pressing the partnerships so this will likely be sorted out before Sac even has a full roster, let alone takes the field in USL.

 

Not only does MLS give Scaramento more press, they even think the Timbers alliance is on.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/bestof/201...t-2013-drumbeat-mls-expansion-no-2-story-year

 

Good. Maybe MLS put Wolff to bed on this one as they should. The Quakes have no more right to Sac than the Galaxy do to San Diego or Las Vegas.