Vancouver and Montreal note their pre-MLS history on their sites as well. I couldn't find any specific history section on the Sounders page, but a google search found an article they ran in 2015 about a player from the NASL Sounders, so they're not throwing anything out.
I just assumed Seattle would mention their history, but I should have checked as I did with the others. It's odd that they are one of the only clubs not to include a club history on their team page. They should have that, it's an easy fix.
In countries with relegation, a club could have their record for goals by a player in a season be while they were in the third level or lower and have the club in the Premier League now. AFC Bournemouth's record is held by Ted MacDougall, who scored 42 in the fourth level in 1970-1971.
Because of MLS business model any clubs that is joining the league from NASL or USL are technically considered new clubs, with no history. Just same badge and colors. In pro rel system, clubs that move up keeps everything about the team, the record, history, badge, legally, they just play in a higher or lower league.
Presentation-wise it's new teams with history. And new badges with the same or similar colors. I think it fits the U.S. setup as things are right now. I guess you could say a team is losing its history from one point of view, but from another it's persevering history if, for example, FC Cincinnati's USL badge stays in that era.
OKay, but if the badge is the same, the colors are the same and the club acknowledges the history of the previous club then, what? The difference, to a fan, would seem to be the club has a different business model? Also, was Minnesota reformed? Is Cinci being disbanded and being rebanded? Portland? I thought they were the same clubs, just that they bought into MLS (which acts like a single entity at times, an independent collective at times and as franchiser at times).
Yeah, but badges do change, everywhere. Shirts sure as hell don't stay the same any more. And clubs with history (not all MLS clubs have a USL, NASL (old or new) past) make note of it so I'm not sure how a club goal scoring record from days of yon is different from noting, in the MLS era the top scorer is so and so? The clubs I've lived with don't spend a lot of time in the top tiers (3 out of 150 years isn't exactly living large for my old England address and who knows how to count DDR standings today) so all the records are lower league. But I don't see MLS clubs actively destroying their histories. I mean, Sporting KC began with MLS, was the Wiz, became the Wizards, became SKC yet the owners love to talk about club history. The bigger problem with US soccer is that for a long time too many club histories were kept in a secretaries notebook and nobody beyond a small inner circle cared enough to get a copy, or get the notebook when the secretary died.
I meant more along the lines of the badge change being mandatory for the MLS transition. Or at least I assume that's the case. If not, yeah, the teams themselves are just going through a routine update. I don't think it's a big deal either way. Like I said, I think it works for the U.S. setup and I don't think anyone is destroying history.
I always assumed the ownership changes were bsaically what happened in KC when the wizards became SKC, a rebrand to make a point that everything was changing, a statement of intent that things are bigger and better now. I kind of thought that bird on the Minnesota crest was a leftover from USL, is it? Does MLS insist on badge and uniform changes?
Doesn't the old badge and branding belong to USL? Changes happen elsewhere. Liverpool changed their badge significantly in 2012, PSG in 1994.
Like Paul Berry said, I assumed it was a brand ownership thing that mandates the change. Interesting about Minnesota, though. I didn't realize their badge was so close to the USL one. I'm surprised FC Cincinnati didn't go for something similar with only very subtle changes.
Minnesota Thunder did play in USL, but they went bust and the Northern stars (a totally different club with the owner being the faacility were the Thunder played) were established in the then USSF D2 under the NASL division, that team went on to become the Minnessota United that we see today (after a few owner changes and name changes).
As you didn't respond to my previous email. Clubs sign who they want. Clubs pay whatever the market demands. 3 DPs, 3 TAM players and homegrown players can all make more than max salary as agreed by MLSPA. Not sure what are you talking about. Just plain wrong! Atlanta would have received 75-80% of Almiron's transfer fee. The clubs keep also 100% of a homegrown player transfer fee.
So, to answer the original post question: Probably never. In only 25 years, MLS has gone from irrelevant to groundbreaking. The model has lifted all boats. Okay, that report on the report is a bit homerish. Here's the full report: http://mysoccerex.com/Soccerex_Football_Finance_100_2020_Edition.pdf So, 17 clubs in the top 100. Number 17 in this rich list is SKC, which is a pretty well run club with a nice, not new anymore, SSS and is now investing in players. Compare: France has 8 clubs on this list. Sure, PSG is number one, but the imbalance is not a good thing for moving forward. Germany has 10. Spain has 10. Italy 9. (I was making these counts, I think they're accurate but please correct me if I'm wrong). The MLS model is working, in the only plae it matters to owners, very nicely. Also, it's interesting that there is a spread in club fortures. If MLS had shown up with 17 clubs occupying 83-100 spots, that would have still be impressive. But the reality is that the league's clubs, despite single entity, create some space between each others. LAFC is tops at something like 18. Looking at the clubs included in this list. using these criteria: A) Playing Assets B) Tangible Assets (i.e. team’s stadiums, training centres and other properties) C) Cash in the bank D) Owner Potential Investment MLS hasn't had a broadly based player asset acquistion effort for very long. They used to survive on dregs, then a few stars and meh players, and only recently have they had full rosters of decent or better players. Also, the list makes me wonder if the other 9 MLS clubs aren't all going to be found in the next 50.
Just to update your answer, that number has been bumped up to 95 percent and MLS has added incentive to sell by allowing $1m or a transfer fee to be converted to GAM, meaning selling clubs have a ton more flexibility with the salary cap