I agree that NASL is the better league. However, it is the league also with the least stability at this time. And I am sorry until NASL is able to stabilize with teams that are not leagues owned or have expansion teams that never get off the ground. NASL is going to be a that uneasy feeling about them.
Of course NASL fans with think the league is higher... But that does not mean that the majority of the fans of individual teams within the NASL feel that way. The loud ones, the hardcore supporters, sure I will grant that they probably feel that the NASL is somehow superior to USL. But for the bulk of the ticket buyers, it is just minor league A or minor league B. There us little distinction. Again, following the USOC results, I see little to no on field distinction either. Outside the Cosmos, there is little to know distinction in spending either.
I will disagree with you a little. there is a difference between USL and NASL. I do agree on the field this year NASL sucked and USL won. But that was more of a fluke results. I do think that there is more talent in NASL compared to USL overall on the rosters. Plus I am sorry the MLSII teams hurt the view of USL. I do think if we are talking about the USL Indy teams they are closer to NASL. I do see a diffence in watching USL and NASL when watching them. Its not a lot, but there is a gap.
I didn't think there were fans of a the NASL (as in fans of the League). Isn't that a big difference with MLS fans and others ... fans who follow a club in the NASL are fans of their club, and fans of MLS "franchises" are fans of their league? Doesn't NASL want you to be a fan of your club, not "the league" so SAS fans would be a fan of their club in whatever league they happen to be in? I'm confused, maybe you don't feel that way, I just hear that a lot from fans of clubs in the NASL.
But a move from NASL to USL doesn't mean SAS would have less of a team. They would be allowed to spend the same on players. They themselves wouldn't have to decrease in quality on the field if they didn't want to. And while I agree that the MLS2 teams may be "con" to the option ... the fact that there would instantly be regional rivals, more than 6 owners at the owners meetings, etc. would be on the "pro" side. Everyone has a decision to make and everyone has preferences, but it's not exactly a easy decision with many more "pro's" on one league than the other.
Toyota Field and Scorpions sale nearing completion http://www.examiner.com/article/toyota-field-and-scorpions-sale-nearing-completion
Huge concerns to me for NASL if SSE gets the Scorpions. and even if they don't it sounds like the SSE are going to try a USL team anyways. (although they have said this since before the Scorpions arrived) IF I am NASL this has to be a huge concern.. With MinnU, Atlanta, and Carolina all with issues as well.
Hartman was supposedly making it a condition of sale that the new owners would take the Scorpions to MLS... If that is the case, then NASL has already lost the team..
Its not up to any potential new owners to take the club to MLS as their not guaranteed a spot, its up to MLS. Hartman will sell to whoever gives him the be$t deal whether its someone who keeps it in NASL or someone who says they will try to take it to MLS (which many lower level teams claim they will do even though most won't and most won't make it). Depending on who may buy the club they could well be in NASL for years even if they made a successful MLS expansion bid and NASL would have time to replace them in that duration.
Of course they’re not guaranteed a spot, but MLS is going to turn down SSE if they come calling with a solid market and a quality business plan? Don’t think so. Resources certainly aren't an issue. Meanwhile, back in reality, who besides SSE is going to give Hartman "the be$t deal"? I highly doubt that potential investors are lining up at his door, especially considering that Bexar County is about to buy Toyota Field. If that happens, guess what: "Bexar County has a clause in their agreement with SSE that states that they cannot own a venue that competes with SSE. As a result, that would make it difficult for Hartman to own a team playing in a stadium owned by the county unless SSE grants the club an exemption." Best of luck to Hartman in getting that exemption, and an investor(s) would want to buy a team with no stadium for it to play in? Along with the probability of going head to head against SSE in the same market? No one would be that stupid. Doesn't look to me like Hartman has any other options. Very wishful thinking with, again, no basis in reality. No one else is going to buy the Scorpions and keep them in the NASL for the reasons stated above. Go back and read the linked article again.
So instead of saying Hartman is requiring the next owner to get them into MLS, just say, Hartman is looking for someone with the recourses and desire to push for MLS. Not a huge difference, but it's much more accurate and possible (possible for what Hartman can "require").
Hartman is looking for someone who has sources of help in a difficult situation? Sorry, couldn't resist . If he is looking for someone with resources and desire for MLS, he doesn't have to look far.
Read my post again, I was discussing the possibilities not the likelihood of what may happen. The true reality is we don't know 100% of whats going on behind the scenes, it looks like its leaning in a certain direction but time will tell when this eventually plays itself out.
http://sbisoccer.com/2015/11/deal-r...opes-of-bringing-mls-franchise-to-san-antonio The city of San Antonio, Bexar County and Spurs, Sports & Entertainment (SS&E) have reached an agreement to buy Toyota Field, home of NASL’s San Antonio Scorpions, for a total of $21 million. Each of the two public entities will pay $9 million while SS&E will provide an additional $3 million to Scorpions owner Gordon Hartman, but government officials still have to give the deal the green light next week.
Please excuse me, I don’t know enough about soccer to have even a decent conversation. What I know about soccer would not fill a thimble or the bottom of a pie cup. Although I could talk about American college football all day, I don’t know enough about soccer to finish even a sentence. With that, I still love the game. I like the energy of the fans, and I like the athleticism of the players. I get just as excited over a goal and good play on the pitch as everyone does. I like massive big clubs with tradition-rich histories and great passionate fan bases, and I like the glory that comes with having a successful team. I long to root for a world class local team. One that plays at the highest level in the country and one that wins consistently always being in the top 3 or 4 of the league year in and year out. San Antonio can be that team although right now they are in a transition and restructuring phase. I am sure there are negotiations, meetings and talks that are taking place as we speak. Of this, I have no doubt. But these dark days will soon pass. We will soon have a very high-quality team with quality management and a team we will all be proud. Please do not think I am bad mouthing SSE, the former management or anything about the Scorpions. This post is what I would like to see in a soccer-football club in San Antonio. All of us agree we would rather quickly like to see the Spurs and Scorpions make an announcement about their plans for 2016. And perhaps an announcement about fielding a USL team in March, which will have a great squad and manager, will be coming in the next week or so. But just as importantly, I would also like for us to select a team name that stirs passion and loyalty and instills fear and respect in our opponents. A name such as San Antonio United. Or San Antonio Football Club would be such a name. It goes without discussion that we should have a strong, appealing and distinctive name for our club. As we present our club and our city to the soccer world we want a name that represents our beliefs, our values, and ideals. One which captures the imagination and hearts of our great fans. One that represents us, the City of San Antonio. San Antonio Football Club is that name because it has a strong bit of authenticity to it. The San Antonio name is well known and certainly unique, and it will unite and bond the city as well as region together. Why should we not select a "mascot" team name? A “mascot” team name sounds like an arena football team or a minor league hockey team and degrades our great club and city. What about the Scorpions? What will happen to the Scorpions name? Scorpions could always be our nickname. Clubs have nicknames all the time. The Scorpions, or the Spurs FC, or the Red and Blacks or some passionate enduring nickname for our beloved local club. European fans lovingly nickname their teams all the time. I believe this is the only way they should go. As the team grows from third division USL status to MLS status, the name will not be outgrown and will, in fact, continue to represent this city while being a good fit in the MLS. SAFC forever. Go you Scorpions!
This explains the delay in announcements from SSE and the Scorpions: http://www.bizjournals.com/sananton...r-county-advances-the-mls-ball-approving.html
So stadium sale seems to not be a done deal yet : "The city and county must also come to terms with Spurs Sports & Entertainment on a long-term lease to operate Toyota Field. There are still some hangups in that process, which could potentially kill a deal for Toyota Field."
How is this a unique name? FC or United is unique? Authenticity? So Portland Timbers or Seattle Sounders are not authentic and Arizona United is because they use a British moniker. I just hate when people say a team name is authentic. Authenticity comes with history for a club. Sheffield Wednesday or Newell's Old Boys are not easy on the ear, but they are authentic brands.
pretty darn sure no one calls themselves San Antonio FC. thus making it unique. why don't you do a google and get back to us.
Well San Antonio Scorpions, Spurs, Lonestars etc are unique also. But you know there may be some youth soccer team called San Antonio FC. Or maybe they should call themselves San Antonio Arsenal to make you happy, actually that's not a bad name, with the Alamo history. Actually what riled me up more, is you saying a certain team name is authentic. I can start a baseball team in Europe and call them the Madrid Yankees or a football team called the Moscow Giants, I guess they are authentic too. Or how is Portland City or Portland FC more authentic than Portland Timbers? Just say you like it because it sounds more British and non-American.
And maybe "unique", for you, gave the wrong impression. While I don't disagree with you about the "uniqueness" of many of the current team names, there is in fact, a naming trend that is a marked contrast to the original 10 MLS teams. The trend is toward the more "traditional" names. See Link. I actually like Timbers, Sounders, Red Bulls, Whitecaps and a few others. However, here in Texas once we get past Cowboys, Longhorns, Lone Stars etc, there are not many quality names. and of those, most are taken. Team names such as Sunsets, Missionaries, Gentlemen, Bronchos, Mustangs, Warriors, Shamrocks, Aces, Bears, Indians, Bullets, Riders, and Chaparrals have all been used in San Antonio and have an honored history which should be guarded with reverence. May they Rest in peace. Unfortunately, Dynamo, Galaxy, and Rapids are all taken as well. The one I really like is Roadrunners, (sorry UTSA). Or, evenbetter, Alamo City FC. Wouldn't that be great? I just do not want our city pride to hang on a silly cartoon character name like the Abominations, or the Androids or the Air-Walkers. That is the only reason I suggest we look to the trend of using "Traditional" names. Just my two cents and not intended to offend or contradict.
Alamo City SC "This We'll Defend" or, if the Army is pissy about that motto Alamo City SC "Come And Take It"
Bexar County Commissioners take final step to purchase Toyota Field by approving lease agreement for #Spurs Hope to bring #MLS to SA— Myra Arthur (@KSATmyra) December 21, 2015