The Kansas City/Chattanooga Pro/Rel Meet-n-Greet Superthread

Heres a question or two

1) Why is it ok for a team to be stolen from say Hawaii and moved to say Tulsa?
2) When Tulsa isn't wanted in MLS, is it then you then decide that you are a pro/rel advocate?Seeing as a franchise was ok before.
3) Did you stomp your feet as a child until you got your way? Why do you think it is going to work now?

Great thread by the way. Fun times.

 

FACTS OF THE MATTER:

It is a public discussion forum.
It is located on the public interwebz.
As someone who has been a member of the boards for not 15 years, I (and many like me) have the ability to respond if we feel it is appropriate.
If you don't like the premise of the responses, you can "ignore" them.
Responses, whether in the form of inexplicably large orangutangs or a picture of a dog spouting random jibberish, will be posted as deemed fit, especially when in response to one who also uses large pictures and snarky quips.

 

Chattanooga FC were courted by USL and seem to have decided that their particular league model is not for them. As a result, another suitor from that market has decided to step into the breach.

If there are ample teams with Chattanooga FC's aspirations, they are entirely free and welcome to start a league that better suits their ambitions and vision. If there aren't enough teams and owners to make this happen... well there's your argument for there not being a pro/rel system for CFC to move up in.

 

There is a league with pro/rel called UPSL. It's not big yet but a few NPSL teams joining would help. There is your div zero.

 

the owner of a new Chattanooga team has committed to USL III. I'm not sure if the city can support two teams. Maybe he'll make some big signings. I hear Gazza is available.

 

Well he did finish his career in Boston...

 

As far as anyone knows, Bob Martino has no relationship with the Chattanooga area outside of having purchased the franchise rights for the area.

This thread provides some reasonable speculation on how Martino came to Chattanooga, but to be clear it's entirely speculation:

The U.S. has a history of people who are big supporters of their community on one hand, and ruthless businessmen on the other: Andrew Carnagie comes to my mind.

Is Bob Martino, a commercial real estate developer from Utah in the same mold?

From what I hear, probably not. https://t.co/haJscMtJ9H

— JH - chattwjonathan.bsky.social (@Chattwjonathan) August 16, 2018

 

Andrew Carnegie was probably the greatest philanthropist in history, to the extent that the annual philanthropy award is named after him.

He may have been a cutthroat businessman but he and his foundation have given more back to the community than anyone.

 

That is literally what he's referring to in that lead off tweet.

 

I read it as Andrew Carnegie being a ruthless businessman

 

Perhaps so. In which case, they can't really complain if somebody who doesn't consider $500k excessive, takes the plunge.

The league has grown and expanded a lot since then. Ten years is hardly a short space of time, especially in sports.

His personal connection to Chattanooga isn't really important.

But such a system doesn't exist for good reasons. If it did, it would all be hunky dory and we'd be well beyond this phase of growth in the US domestic game.

They're also not forced to do anything they don't want to. I sympathise that their options are currently limited but they do have options - probably more options than any time in their history bar NASL 2.0's active existence. In hindsight, it would probably have been a bad move for them to join that league anyway.

You missed this option:

C) Remain in NPSL.

Indeed, they knew the US soccer landscape going in (or at least you'd hope). It's not like they could have any expectation of being promoted after their first season.

Tulsa Roughnecks are also not synonymous with Tulsa Athletic, so photos of crowds at their respective games at different times, doesn't really indicate much. I guess you're suggesting that the existence of a D3 club means that the TA fan base has been cannibalized, only for those fans to abandon local soccer altogether.

The thing is, Tulsa Roughnecks current attendance for 2018 is in line with the lower-mid range of what a typical D2 team would expect. They wouldn't be the worst attended in Italy, Spain or France's D2.

I can't find hard numbers on the Athletic but it seemed they were still pulling over 2k after the Roughnecks arrived. Again, not an unreasonable attendance for a third or fourth tier team.

I can see both sides and given the way things have gone with NASL, I can appreciate the requirement. I still wonder if the USSF wouldn't be open to waiving that requirement under certain circumstances. I believe that Detroit City FC's business performance and level of support might well make them a candidate with certain caveats. I'm less familiar with CFC. They might be able to get past that req too.

However, not being D3 and working under the USASA in a full-time league is certainly an option, which in time might give rise to a D3 league or alternatively, create a case for a set of D4 reqs for well-run teams with lesser resources.

That's one way of looking at it. It could also be seen as strengthening a growing open league pyramid.

I'm strongly considering taking in some local UPSL games next season.

I actually think a lot of US domestic soccer's problems could be helped if teams & fans weren't so resistant to dropping below level x. NASL might still be playing if they weren't so hung up on being no less than "D2".

 

I think what he means that is that from a business perspective, Carnegie let nothing stand in his way and, similarly, despite the philanthropic good Martino may have done in Utah, the Chattanooga USL team is a business investment.

 

It's not irrelevant: there is absolutely something to be said about an owner that is invested in the community (see Arthur Blank), vs. an out of town franchise owner (viz. Kroenke - all editions; Precourt). It's not a universal rule, but not a bad rule of thumb, either.

The PLS isn't really the issue here, it's the fact that clubs have no way to build up to it if they want to. The choices are: stay amateur in a summer league or make an enormous, risky, and expensive gamble by trying to go pro and hope the league doesn't implode around you.

If we want a large and stable pyramid, you've got to make it less risky to start and build a team up to the pro levels. And before the rebuttals of "ANY SPORTS TEAM IS A MONEY LOSING RISK!!1!ONE!" come pouring in, no one is disputing that. But there's a massive difference between increasing your team, finances, and profile incrementally, vs. buying your way into the middle and frantically treading water until you break even or run out of money. The former has A) less financially at stake B) more opportunities in more locations.

This is the long game they're playing towards, as I see it.

UPSL seems to be the new lower division darling due their growth and pro/rel, but they also seem laughably inept at the same time: this happened in their national championship quarterfinal:
http://www.boisefcpro.com/news/2018/08/14/boise-cutthroats-fc-official-statement

Not that NPSL can't also be a clown league on a fairly consistent basis, but a striking difference is that NPSL is a club run league, whereas UPSL the league is independent of the clubs. So where failures of leadership are understandable when there isn't a strong central authority, they're far less excusable when that's not the case.

 

You can't start any business without a high degree of risk. Why should soccer be different?

MLS survived because 3 owners were willing to sink $100 millions of dollars into a league that was hemorrhaging money, and they've all done quite well out of it.

By 2021 28 MLS and 35 independent USL owners will have taken that risk, as will the USL 3 teams.

They say you shouldn't gamble more than you can afford to lose and I would say that applies to soccer too. Rocco says he lost $16 million in one season but he still had enough left to bid for Inter Milan.

The alternative is for 3 or 4 massive investors to fund the whole league, like Kraft, Hunt and Anschutz did in 2002.

 

It can certainly be an indicator of personal investment in the team but that's by no means certain. In the past, it's also been the result of the heart ruling the head.

Gretna FC is a prime example. Brookes Mileson bought the club after they were elected to the SFL and pumped millions of his personal fortune into the team, taking them from SFL 3 to the Premier League in consecutive seasons. However, due to declining health and personal financial problems, he was forced to withdraw financial support from the club, leaving them in massive debt and not a viable participant in the SPL. The team finished bottom and went into liquidation.

Conversely, we've seen many owners with no local connection, bankroll teams to success.

I'd argue though, that these are symptoms of the landscape not being ripe for an expansive connected pyramid, rather than the product of not having one.

Before these interconnected league systems are fully matured, healthy and relatively open, they actually are going throw a steady growth phase. I'm inclined to think that the amateur/semi-pro levels simply haven't grown to a point yet, where there's an easy place for a CFC to go, unless they have the financial clout to join a pro league.

I know this isn't the most ambitious or creative of answers but there's nothing wrong with standing pat and managing your resources for the time being. Growth is happening and even if a viable D3 /D4 tier isn't there right now, it certainly appears to be on the horizon. I actually think that this is where the whole ProRelforUSA thing muddies the waters. There's nothing wrong with CFC, DCFC, even Tulsa Athletic simply being what they are right now.

As I've said before, pro/rel pyramids grew out of people simply supporting their teams and progressing organically. Here, there seems to be this relentless clamouring to progress towards something more. I might be wrong but in my discussion with some of the lower-league pro/rel advocates, rather than being excited that their team is performing well in their own league, there's an attitude of "yeah, yeah, we did that.. but what now?".

If that was the culture in England, 75% of the clubs in the EPL each season, would have probably seen their fans call it a day 20 years ago, let alone fans of clubs on the 13th tier.

 

What are you doing today? I, again, literally addressed this argument.

Of course there is risk. But like any financial decision there is managed risk vs speculative risk.

Like you said, don't gamble with what you can't afford to lose. The whole point is if that figure is a whole lot lower, that's good for everybody, isn't it?

 

This is also missing the point. The teams you're mentioning have outgrown the summer leagues, they are actually starting to stagnate and regress. You are right that they aren't ready to go pro, yet, but there is also nowhere for them to go to grow to get there.

The real value of NPSL Pro is that it would provide that avenue for clubs: costs can be whatever the club is comfortable with and as they grow, they can spend more.

Eventually, that will grow to the bottom of the pro pyramid.

But right now there is absolutely no sustainable path there.

 

Actually, the part about stagnating and regressing is precisely the point I was making. You're talking about two teams that are under ten years old.

The words I hear specifically from both that club's supporters are "club" and "community", which they hold up as the essence of what their teams are. The "soul" if you will. Indeed, I've been debating with a member of the Northern Guard who was slamming the Columbus Crew fans for persisting with the #SaveTheCrew movement, instead of abandoning MLS and starting their own independent club. Not persuading or suggesting... openly criticising.

If the fans, the culture and community are the cornerstones of those teams, then remaining in NPSL shouldn't see them regress. That only happens if they are a flash-in-the-pan or the supporters are only interested if the team is on an upward trajectory.

I mean, from a certain POV, Man United haven't progressed on the field since 2008. In fact they've declined. Old Trafford is still pulling in 75k per week. Perhaps not quite apples-to-apples but the principle is the same... especially given the purported fan culture of DCFC. They should remain a force in NPSL.

Now of course, I agree that it would be better if there was an incremental step they could take and while organic growth or evolution can't be prematurely forced, I would be surprised if the scenarios of clubs like this didn't ultimately become a catalyst for change.

 

Man United doesn't play 14 games in 9 weeks then have to wait another 43 for the next season. That's a misplaced analogy.
I'm not bringing pro/rel into this, but FC United Manchester is a better example: supporters could build a club from nothing into a pro-ish club. But if they were off for 9 months, it's really hard to maintain awareness in the community, especially with other competing interests. That is a REALLY long off-season.

But the real point is that the club has been ready to grow for the past three years, there's just nowhere to do that. It's not about being a flash in the pan or novelty, but you have stated the reality of attendance to league multiple times on multiple threads. When a club cannot or will not move to a relative level their support will garner, there will likely be a regression towards the mean.

Also, please don't lump me into club > league set: I don't begrudge anyone supporting their local team, regardless of the circumstances. I support the idea of independent clubs and open leagues, but I'd rather enjoy soccer than engage in a religious war over how people watch other people kick a ball around.