I think it's a BAD idea to put another MLS team in Texas, can we not find another state. No MLS Expansion into States that already have teams. Shouldn't that be on the list along with Stadiums and Investors? Mr. Garber are you listening?
That's what I said. And then I got yelled at. So I stopped. I think a team based in Corpus Christi would be cool. Just becuase of the possible team names. (Don't blast me, I know it's not possible.) Prof
why? are you saying that there might be an overlapping fan base from dallas to houston or something? or are you just another person who clings to the "national footprint" ideal of expansion without practical consideration of the markets MLS needs to tap into?
Well, that's because it's a really amazingly stupid idea. You see, the thing is, Texas is big. Really big. It's quite a bit farther from Houston to Dallas than it is from Boston to New York, which are more than far enough apart to have two different teams.
What Godot22 said. Huge state. Two completely different markets. If the interest and I/O is there I say go for it.
yeah, it's not exactly like we can be picky. go for the best market, regardless of state* .... heck, long island/new york would probably be a good place for another team. * except florida.
Houston always has great Nielsen ratings for MLS and US Soccer, I could see an expansion team easily drawing 17k its first season.
I agree that it would be a horrible idea to put a team in a place where there already might be a natural rivalry with another nearby city. I think MLS should focus on cities that know nothing about each other and certainly don't have negative opinions about each other in order to foster goodwill and spread the word about the wonderful opportunities out there. And they should be as far away from each other as possible so as to discourage away fans from taunting the home team.
That's just plain goofy logic. Where should Garber look - Montana - Iowa? Houston is 220 miles from Dallas, a 4 or 5 hour drive. We're not talking about putting a team in Fort Worth here 30 minutes from Dallas. We're talking about Houston which has a HUGE population. The city starts 40 miles outside of downtown. The market is there - they watch MLS there - often in numbers higher than MLS cities. If they can get an owner who owns the stadium - I would put a team there tomorrow, Reliant or Robertson. Dallas and Houston would be a rivalry right up there with Yankees - Red Sox, on an MLS scale. For our sake I hope Garber is not listening to you. And obviously he's not. He's intelligent.
This probably falls under the heading of piling on, but I'm glad that he isn't because your idea is so stupid, I hesitate to even use the word "stupid," simply because it doesn't describe the length and breadth of how bad it is. Let's say that El Paso was proposing a soccer specific stadium and there was a local businessman that was interested in bringing a team to El Paso. However, under the Goosegg Doctrine, he'd be shut out. Why? Because El Paso is in the same state as Dallas. Never mind that El Paso is 630 miles west of Dallas by car. And let's apply the Goosegg Doctrine to California. Which team do you want to contract, the Quakes or the Galaxy? After all, we can't have two teams in the same state.
Nah, let's keep both teams. Let's just accelerate the process of formally separating Northern California from Southern California. That way, we can keep to our Doctrine.
Washington, Oregon, Penn., and Georgia all come to mind as states without MLS teams and with decent markets. I think Houston is a good place to go, but lets not kid ourselves, there are "national footprint" issues to be considered. It's not like Billings and Grand Rapids are the largest cities in the coutry without a MLS team.
True. Houston may not expand the "footprint" vision - but it adds an impressive toe to the foot we've got going. If MLS can gets its way, I would add Houston and Rochester in the same year. Portland and Seattle in the same year. Places where a rivalry can get going pretty quickly (houston-dallas, roch-metro). Tossing in a random Atlanta and a Seattle are all fine and good, but they're off all by themselves. I realize of course that bigger issues drive these decisions - I'm just talking like if there was an MLS RISK game - that is how I would expand my empire. Disclosure: I cannot remember the last time I played RISK - maybe the mid '80's.
I'm from Houston and would like an MLS team, but I think Houston is much more likely to draw 12.5k a year than 17.5k a year. Maybe 15k for the first season. I do think that Houston would seat 25-30k a game if we got an MFL expansion team though...
Dallas sucks All I have to say is you people are mean, and those people that don't agree with my opinion are stupid. There, now we can resume this discussion. Houston and Dallas would have a nice rivalry, as would any other team in the same state as any other MLS team. Cleveland vs Columbus. Rochester vs Metrostars. I mean yeah you can have a rivalry in any State with an MLS team. The issue is that the expansion should first go to a state without a team. Your getting seconds before everyone at the table has eaten.
Don't start that up. Actually the issues are: 1. Ownership 2. Stadium Viabilty 3. Market size You can mix up the order of those any way you like - but the state the city is in in only indirectly related. If Houston gets items 1/2 in order before Seattle / Portland - then Houston gets the team. It ain't about being fair - its about money.
We just need some expansion... If I had may way, the MLS would only expand to major markets which had a SSS in place. But since things like this are pretty much out of my control, I say the league should take the best stadium situation with the best ownership group. To me, OKC is a lock and Rhochester is looking pretty good. Places like Philadelphia and Houston, it doesn't sound like the local NFL owners are all that interested. The league doesn't need half-assed owners who aren't in it for the long haul. In the current economic reality for MLS, there's very little chance for any significant TV money, so pick situations where there's the best possible chance of making money through ticket sales and get on with it. Get all the teams in good stadium deals, show a small profit, and I guarantee that potential ownership groups with SSS's will be coming out of thw woodwork.
Re: We just need some expansion... Like Reliant Stadium? Oh, you meant MIDSIZE soccer-specific stadiums. People of Earth: Soccer-specific does not mean soccer only...and geez, you'd have to be a real dummy to build a stadium just for soccer and turn away all other business opportunites to fill that stadium.
Re: Re: We just need some expansion... The problem with Reliant is the cost to open. Look at the fiasco in the Champions Cup with the Revs/Gillette. Even though Kraft owns the stadium, the team can't afford to play a game there. It costs more to open a stadium like Arrowhead or Seahawks or Gillette than it does to open a Columbus Crew or Home Depot Center. I wouldn't be opposed to a Houston team in Reliant, but only if there were reasonable prospects on the horizon for their own stadium. I feel the same way about Seattle - even though Seahawks Stadium was built with the promise of an MLS franchise.
Goosegg... is that your IQ? Goosegg, you remind me of the kid in elementary school who would get confused looking at a US map that didn't have the state borders. People in the NY area don't even know where Rochester is, much less have any of the hatred (or even mere dislike) they might have for other nearby sports rivals like Boston, Philadelphia or DC. The NY Rangers don't play the Rochester Americans, although I think the lacrosse teams from those cities do play each other. Then again, the Lawn Guylin lacrosse team also plays Bridgeport CT. You want a team there too? Rochester would have more of a rivaly with Columbus than NYC, although there will certainly be the one-way rivalry where the Rochester fans will want to beat their big city non-neighbors whenever possible. Cleveland vs Columbus are close by, but in that sense, I actually agree with you. Those places are too close, and I bet there are lots of people in the Cleveland area who are Crew fans and go to games regularly. How far apart are they, 2-3 hours by car? Again, those cities don't have rivalries in other sports. Most Columbus people probably support all the Cleveland teams or the Cincinnati teams, but Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus do not have any sports teams in the same leagues, and therefore never play each other. Dallas and Houston, Dallas and Oklahoma, Seattle and Portland, St. Louis and Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago, Milwaukee and Minnesota, Milwaukee and Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland/Columbus, those are all cities where there are already built-in rivalries. If the main components (ownership, stadium, etc.) are there, those would be the places to go, not some random act of geography to create artificial rivalries. Tom
Time...patience...and reasonability... I agree with much of what you said, but I want to pick on this statement. It's unreasonable for us to assume that we know the interests of NFL owners in Houston, Philly, Seattle, or anywhere else. First, it's too early for NFL owners who have just opened new facilities (or in Houston's case, also just opened an NFL expansion team) to have gotten very far into analysis - not to mention even preliminary due diligence - for a major project like running an MLS expansion team. These efforts are all major projects that require significant time and effort from a lot of people. In Houston's case, for example, McNair's organization was also deeply involved in the planning, financing, politics, design, and operation of the facility. It's unreasonable to think that these NFL owners' organizations have been conducting any meangingful due diligence on MLS in their spare time. Second, most sensible business people don't go around making public proclamations of their possible investment interests. You don't make any public statments until the deal is well under way and you've spent some time and effort on at least some key pieces of prelim due diligence. It's unreasonable to think that NFL owners are going to hold press conferences, issue press releases, or tell reporters at announcements for other events whether they're interested in MLS (or any other potential deal that's not very far along). Making impatient posters on soccer boards feel better just isn't a priority. Btw, just for the record, McNair negotiated with Harris County for a right of first refusal for MLS in Reliant through the end of 2005. There's no reason for him to hurry unless a third party makes a bona fide offer before then. And, as a practical matter, a third party has a disincentive to make such an offer when there's a right of first refusal lurking in the background (it's not necessarily a deal-killer, but it complicates the process). In any event, no one gives you a right of first refusal for free. You have to give up something else to get it, so you better be sure you really want it. Of course, it's also possible that McNair thought the right of first refusal on MLS was worth something when he negotiated the Reliant deal, but has since decided otherwise. But I think he'd need to have seen at least some prelim due diligence results to have a reasonable basis to reach that conclusion. I'm not arguing that the NFL owners in Houston, Philly, Seattle or wherever are in fact in interested in MLS but just not telling us about it. I am suggesting that it's unreasonable to think that we would know one way or the other at this point. I'm also arguing that the lack of public blabbering by serious business people about a possible investment that they haven't yet had adequate time to investigate reasonably isn't necessarily an indication of a lack of interest in such investment (especially in cases where they've previously negotiated for a right of first refusal on such investment).