Sacramento Republic FC: former partners, future rivals

Which would beg the question of why the Republic didn't go down the path of adding/changing investors instead of pulling out. If there are really some big money investors interested, one would think there would have been conversations prior to throwing away their reserved franchise seat. MLS is in the position to treat Sac no different than San Diego, Phoenix, or Fresno as they look at their next steps.

 

I think yoiur point is spot on and leans toward this being a lot of bluster from a mayor who was left holding the hot potato by Burkle. There may be interest, but I wouldn't believe it until something more concrete materializes. No reason to come off the DOOM ledge for now.

 

After the first ownership group fell apart, and now this one also, I can't see MLS coming back for more from Sac. As G.W. Bush once said so eloquently, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me [dang, now on twice it's shame on who(?), I'm so confused]— uh, you can't get fooled again!"

 

I am really bummed to hear about this. We have kids that have lived in Sacramento (one is still there) and we had a blast going there for Quake's pre-season games. Was looking forward to going up games and hanging out at Old Town or Mid-Town afterwards.

A stadium right next to the river would have been awesome. Bummer!

 

Right? I mean MLS isn't going to pull the plug entirely for a while. But the writing is on the wall it seems. MLS has been having buyers' remorse since they pulled the trigger, and this finally gives them an excuse to move on from Sac. I mean they've already got 3 teams in California, and Garber hasn't made it any secret if they're going to have another California team, a different more southerly city is his first choice since he's been listing it as a priority for nearly 20 years.

 

Leave out 'in California' from your arguments. State lines are completely irrelevant. It's a big state. If that was a driving factor, they never would have added LAFC. These conversations need to be about population base, TV market size, and perceived fan support (which the hardest to judge.) Sacramento is ranked 20th for TV market and 26th for metropolitan area (but if you bring in Stockton MSA, which I think you should, then they would be ranked 18th with only Phoenix and Tampa being above them for cities without an MLS team. Putting aside the ownership, Sacramento is an excellent choice. Aside from SLC & Denver which don't have nearby options anyway, SJ is the most isolated team in the league with LAFC being 350 miles away.

San Diego is something to go after especially since the Chargers aren't there anymore, but the voters made it clear they'd rather have a stadium for a 2nd (3rd?) rate college football team than for a professional soccer team. San Diego also has notoriously shown a lack of support for their teams. I'm sure they could get it to work, but it's not been an easy market to get a stadium built for and hasn't shown great support for their sports teams. That said, if San Diego was able to get together real investors and a real stadium plan (which is the tough one), then there's no reason why MLS wouldn't consider them over the current state of Sac.

 

First, you had to make qualifiers out the gate. You can't bring in Stockton. It's not Sac. Yes you might get a few TV viewers, but your day of game fans aren't coming from Stockton or most of Sac's TV market range. And yes Sac has had good fan interest, but from what the guys on the Sac board are saying, they're well past peak on that and it's waning.

Second, yes you can look at TV market and MSA, but you also have to consider Sac's history of having fans lured away by Bay Area teams particularly in the TV interest department, and not just soccer teams. So that factors in.

Third, is ownership. Sac has none. Admittedly San Diego doesn't have one at present, but they'd be even markets on that. Also a big factor to consider is corporate base to back that owner and the fans up buying those suites, sponsorships, etc.... Sacramento doesn't have a corporate base to speak of, San Diego does, albeit not LA or Bay Area sized but it's there. Also plays into the "sex" appeal issue. Sacramento is as interesting as a Toyota Camry as far as cities go, and I say that as a long time fan of the city itself. San Diego is a destination city people from the world over come to visit (when we're all not rightly cowering in fear of a damned century pandemic).

Lastly, your point on the voters choosing SDSU over SoccerCity is correct in that, that was the choice that was made. But it was done for two reasons, one, the MLS ownership group was an iffy proposition, SDSU is a tried and true winner for the city who weren't going to leave the city hanging with extra bills (something that the city won't allow to happen after the Chargers screwed San Diego in 1997). Of course they went with the better deal at the ballot box. And it still results in a stadium that is easily MLS ready out the gate which factored into the vote (it will more than likely be the future home of the USL side from what the Loyal have said). Why would they vote for an MLS stadium when they can have an dual use stadium that has far less risk for the city. And as for fan interest. The Padres are always middle of the pack in attendance, with some of MLB's shittiest teams to ever take the field. And the lower level clubs like the Gulls, SDSU baseketball, etc... always draw well (Gulls have been Top 3 in minor league hockey attendance their entire existence and the Top several times, SDSU basketball regularly sells out). San Diego has a proven track record of supporting shit teams well, and winners very well. For some reason the Chargers struggling with fans, which was overblown largely at the Spanos behest, gets blown up into "San Diego doesn't support its teams". Which is patently false. The Spanos family were pushing a narrative to move away for years while fielding teams that were frankly an embarrassment.

 

There is always some "qualification" to any opinion. I was getting a little excited about Sacramento, if only for the location of the proposed stadium. Being next to the Amtrak station (as well as the local light rail) was going to give me (in the Fresno area) at least a much easier option of public transit to the games. With 5 or 6 Amtrak trains per day, each way, it was going to be a great way to comfortably attend games, even if I had to stay the night (not an issue for me). Heck, there is a decent hotel next to the train terminal. Technically, you are correct about Stockton, but it isn't any further from the Sacramento site than fans attending Quakes games from SF, Livermore, Gilroy, Santa Cruz, etc.

 

Thats the big rub of it. Sacramento is shaping the railyards up as the biggest urban revitalization project in the nation. The stadium is its projected centerpiece. I would hate for that to be undone for the city because of that

 

Qualifiers for sure. The only reason I mentioned Stockton is b/c they are listed as part of the Sac TV market (but not part of their metro area). Personally, I don't see Republic fans being lured away by the Earthquakes. If anything, the way the Quakes have been, you might see the opposite.

I get the corporate base is bigger in San Diego, but it isn't like Sac is Fresno (sorry) or something. The area is a secondary location for many large Bay Area based companies. Owners is a problem in both markets (apparently.) Sac has everything lined up though as far as a stadium, city support, etc. I was over simplifying the stadium in San Diego, but it still holds true. If there was that much support there the vote would have been different. The question is whether MLS will allow a non-soccer specific stadium into the expansion process.....oh wait....never mind. Was there ever a true ownership group with any real plan to bring a team to San Diego?

The point is on this, there's no huge reason to have San Diego over Sac. If there were it would have been the choice. Nothing has changed for the positive in San Diego which we know of that would change this.

 

I moved to the Phoenix area in 2020 and the Rising are building a 10K seat stadium to be used this season. The facility also has about five or six other fields that are being used as training. I have to believe that they are being considered to getting a spot but the summer heat would have to be a big factor.

I also think MLS really wants something in SAC to help spur a rival for the Quakes. I know we all hate LA but now LAG has LAFC to hate and we have no one. In addition I wonder if MLS is pissed that Fisher has done so little with all the potential of the Bar Area that SAC is needed to push him to do better.

 

Yup. As I mentioned before, aside from Denver & SLC (which don't have options) San Jose is the most isolated team in the league distance-wise.

As far as pushing Fisher, I don't know if it would matter. There are different business models for running teams. Some owners have the desire to win. Other owners don't care about winning because they've realized that they can get a good return on their money with less risk by just showing up and having a good season or two every decade. As long as owners buy a permanent spot in a league you'll continue to see this.

 

they'd surely need to expand beyond 10K for MLS, at least double that. Is the stadium expansion-friendly?

 

Realistically they'd need to make it an indoor stadium too. I'm honestly not sure how Rising have made what they have work in the heat. Phoenix is hands down the hottest city in the United States for a large chunk of the year. I remember going to a baseball game in the early fall on an average day and it was still 95 degrees at after 9:30pm during the post-game fireworks show. It was miserable.

 

preaching to the choir my guy, got a nice deal in Scottsdale on a 5 star hotel with the Mrs for our anniversary in August. It was stupid beat down hot in the day. I was thinking "this will be okay, so long as the hotel has air conditioning". 5 star hotel, nothing to worry about, right? WRRROOOOONNGGGG. No air conditioning, and it was 96 degrees at midnight. No repair man on the property. It is the first time and only time in my life have I done a full on Karen one star yelp / tripadvisor review. I was livid. Just thinking about it gets me worked up. Wife was fine, because her blood type is Satan's core and she loves that, but I woke up in a puddle of sweat. It. Was. AWFUL. Next day I went to Sedona and pretty much sat next to the air conditioning right at check in and went to bed at 730 pm. Talk about your first world problems, I know, LOL.

SOOOOOO yes, I can imagine that has a hell of an affect on the soccer players. Unless Phoenix has a SSS that can suck in seagulls from seattle, AND night games are the norm, that's gonna be hopeless

There is one other city in the MLS I for the life of me cannot understand how soccer players get by playing in for its own different kind of hell: Houston. Jeeeeezus Christ, you need gills. It might actually be a worse climate than Phoenix, and that says something. Dallas gets a very honorable mention in that regard, and frankly, Austin games arent going to be that much better. Texas summers are just gross.

 

Yes, Stockton is in the Sac market. CA-99 from Yuba City/Marysville down to Stockton is in the Sac market. Manteca and Stockton are in the watershed between Sac and the Bay Area. Driving distance from Stockton to Sac is the same as to Hayward. I worked with more people driving to Sac from Stockton than when I was working in RWC.

 

I mean I'm sorry for Sacramento's loss, but I know who I'm pulling for on that list. And it's not the teams that play in the two places that are hotter than hell during the season.

But yeah ideally they'd all get in.

 

I think Sacramento's one hope and advantage IF they can get a solid investor/investment group is that the competition (Vegas, Phoenix, SD, Detroit) need bids that are literally perfection before MLS jumps. Im talking city on board, expansion fee in hand, SSS all be firmly checked off, much like the Carolina out of nowhere owner.

 

I think you give Garber too much credit. These days it's back to, if they have the check, they're in. SSS is not a must anymore clearly, rather a profitable stadium situation is more important. And the city only has to be on board in so far as there is some interest and the city government doesn't have any ways to cock it up.

 

local city governments are extraordinarily efficient at mucking things up. Detroit already knows full well, as does San Diego. Nashville had a huge scare with their stadium as well because of the incoming governor of Nashville who gave the expansion owners another multi million dollar shakedown.

 

Well, in the case of Sacramento all that was needed was a promise. No signed paperwork. No check.

 

The Zonies are all driving around San Diego anyway during the summer.

 

....And here I was under the impression that Nashville was a city with a mayor while all the time it was a state with a governor...