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

Also, we're talking about dropping from averaging a little less than 4500/game to a little over 3500/game for one season, I wouldn't exactly say it's time to short CFC's stock.

 

As I said in the other thread, teams have to bring their standards up to the teams a level above them before promotion and relegation.

In Germany pro/rel was already in place in the amateur leagues before the Bundesliga as formed in 1963.

In England promotion and relegation in 1892 followed the merger of two leagues of roughly the same standard.

Also the Football League opened up in 1987 after former amateur clubs turned professional and proved they could survive in the EFL.

The USSF standards are very demanding financially, perhaps too demanding but I guess that's to avoid the anarchy that was NASL, with its 63 teams in 16 years.

 

I don't think anybody is arguing about the PLS here, though. The problem is that a club cannot work towards the bottom of the pyramid: they can form, establish their brand/following, grow a little bit, then... there's nowhere to go. The only recourse is to take a big money investor, willing to assume a lot of immediate risk and financial loss to move up.

But that's a sure fire way to stunt growth.

I don't really have a problem with the professional standards: I think they're a pretty reasonable expectation of what is necessary to operate a team/league at their respective level.

Where the problem lies is that the steps between D3 and D1 are mostly pretty clear: they're still probably too far apart, but they're at least moderately quantifiable.

But if the distance from D1 to D3 is from the sun to Earth, the amateur leagues are somewhere in the orbit of Neptune.

 

You seem to be detecting a hostile tone that I'm certainly not meaning to convey. I'm not lumping you into any group. Your points on domestic US soccer a very solid.

I'm not even disagreeing with you for the most part.

I'm merely framing a POV that I've encountered in this country a fair bit. The most drastic extreme of that is "What's the point of following a team that can't reach D1?".

That to me is antithetical to what I believe support of a team to be.

I sympathize with the teams that have potential to be bigger than they are but not quite big enough to reach the next existing league.

At the same time, given how fragmented the US soccer landscape has been over the last 30-40 years, this was always likely to happen if/when the game started to grow.

Really, I feel like teams like CFC and DCFC are signs of growth. They're in the unfortunate position of being stalled but someone was always going to have to do this first.

As I said, hopefully this situation is a catalyst for change, whereby the need for another step is identified and emerges.

 

There were successful amateur clubs in England before the pyramid opened.

Also where did first division teams have to go before the Fairs and European cups?

That didn't seem to be a consideration.

 

Sorry, I was being defensive because I thought you were lumping me in with e.g. Dion Degennaro (who may or may not be who you were referring to, but it fits the profile), but I feel chastising soccer fans for supporting "the wrong team" is counterproductive to what DCFC is trying to accomplish. I overreacted to that and I apologize.

So one thing that I think is hard to articulate to those of you who have pro soccer in your cities (which implies you are both in a market that supports pro soccer and has rich people willing to make the risk on it) is that there will almost certainly always be pro soccer in your city (Columbus notwithstanding). I understand the argument that Chattanooga is being offered a pro team, why am I not embracing that, and if it was nearly any other hick burg, I'd probably say the same thing.

The reason that USL wants to be here is because of what CFC established, but one reason that I really am invested in this club is because they legitimately want to help other clubs and cities create what they've done, and I really admire and appreciate that. To take the USL franchise is effectively kicking the ladder out from behind us. And eventually the lower division team will fold and we'll be left with nothing and we'll have scuttled the model that could have helped create other Chattanooga FCs in Fort Smith or Tallahassee or Fort Wayne or wherever.

Little known fact: Chattanooga had a USL team in the 90s (they were USISL then): Sean McDaniel played for them. They folded. It took 10 years to get another team.

 

That's what I'm saying though: that doesn't exist here currently.

 

And while I wish them well, they don't have a god-given right to be the only team in that City.

If someone wants to put a USL team there, that's their prerogative.

Expansion fees exist for a reason that has been covered and explained multiple times. The way both versions of NASL conducted expansion is proof positive why they're important in this kind of structure.

That's true but at the same time, that's what you chose and/or had the capacity to be.

It's a bit like me writing my blog in my spare time, purely as a hobby and complaining that I can't get the same exposure as Kevin Baxter due to him being a professional journalist for the LA Times.

I'm happy you still exist too and perhaps your aspirations will help give rise to a D3 or new D2. Or even a D4 so that you can take an incremental step.

And to clarify: I am no fan of territorial rights in leagues.

In fairness, tickets distributed is a commonplace method of tallying attendance. I'd be surprised if those D2 leagues didn't use it. In fact, the lower you go and less high-tech the operation, the more likely they are to go with distribution as they already have hard figures on that.

Asking attendants to keep count of who physically attends is time-consuming and unreliable.

Thanks for the OCSC tip. I've seen them via Los Dos. They're an LAFC affiliate though, so "Boooo!".

I actually work in Irvine & my wife is due to have her name added to the Willed Body Program Memorial at UCI, so I'm connected to the city. OC has a fair few clubs.

Interesting. Hell, I could take in a few leagues this year.

Did you say you attend Athletic AND occasional Roughnecks games (despite your reservations)?

I'm generally inclined to agree. Club regardless of level.

Great Yarmouth Town are off to a shite start btw.

 

Yep.

His reputation preceeds him.

For some reason it escaped me that you followed CFC.

I've actually had some positive interactions with Dion though. He's far from a bad guy AFAIK.

 

I agree! He seems generally like someone I'd enjoy hanging out with! But I don't have to agree with his attitude towards people who aren't invested in independent soccer.

 

Bums in seats is the way most British teams have always reported attendances. Police want an accurate record of the number of people in the stadium. They used to count ticket stubs but these days a lot of turnstiles are computerized. The Guardian reported that some Premier League teams, such as Man Utd and Arsenal, counting no-show ticket holders as if it were a scandal.

Meanwhile:

The media should stop using the term "expansion fee" and call it what it is, an investment.

 

It's also cogent for what we're talking about here by pointing out how sketchy and fly by night that U.S. Premiership league seems. Didn't they include crests from teams that have nothing to do with them?

Because there is no real money in it, non-division soccer leagues are always going to be run by try-hards that either have no money or are inept (or both) or disinterested capitalists happy with a small but consistent set of marks to bilk due to the lack of real options at this level.

 

Probably not coincidence that both of those clubs have American owners.

Regarding the expansion fee, you're right regarding MLS, but USL is absolutely just an expansion fee.

 

Well Arthur Blank could throw in $100 millions to make Atlanta the American Bayern Munich or Juventus, leaving the rest of the league to do nothing but fight for a CCL spot, or if you're a Canadian team, nothing to play for at all.

And there's also a myth that pervades the global soccer fan base that MLS allocates players to clubs which is ridiculous. Clubs sign who they want to as long as their overall roster meets MLS requirements.

Why should they take notice of an individual that bought a pup and lost $16 million in a single-year, deluding himself that "Cosmos" is the most prestigious name in US Soccer? Did he provide a business case for MLS owners or did he Tweet it?

With regard to local ownership, the soccer landscape has changed completely since Rothenberg and Logan both resigned in 1998 at a time when MLS was hemorrhaging money.

Back in the 1990s/early 2000s most clubs in Europe had local owners or lifelong supporters, Matthew Harding at Chelsea, Jack Hayward at Wolves, Martin Edwards at Manchester United, Jack Walker at Blackburn, Peter Ridsdale at Leeds, an almost anonymous local group at Liverpool, Philip Carter at Everton, Nigel Doughty at Nottingham Forest, Peter Hill-Wood at Arsenal...the list goes on. I'm sure it was the same in most European leagues. Now I think all of those clubs are foreign owned.

You're referring to Bill Peterson, right? I don't think MLS needs to sell itself to anyone when there's such an over-demand.

We had true grassroots teams for the best part of a century. ASL (1933-1983) was a true regional league with community based teams until the league went crazy and tried to expand nationally to compete with NASL. Brooklyn Italians will celebrate their 70th anniversary next year. But that never matured into a professional league, even though it was based in the northeast keeping costs down.

On the other hand, the fully professional top-down ASL (1921-1933) brought thousands through the gate attracted by some top European players at the time, including 50 internationals (according to Wikipedia). Of course that folded after the sort of in-fighting we've come to expect in pro soccer in the USA.

What are the startup costs for a professional soccer team and how many teams would you need to build to build a D1 professional league given that many will fail within the first few years unless you ensure that they have sufficient funds. I don't like the principle owner clause as it seems unfair to smaller clubs but I think the need for teams to prove that they have the finances to last 3 years is a necessity.

Yes, but it's the American way. And why? Marketing-wise it makes sense to create the impression of scarcity. And not all teams over report.

I've watched Phoenix Rising a few times on TV. Grass pitch, nice soccer specific stadium with standing room only at every match.

Surely the length of the season is determined by NPSL, or am I wrong? And there are professional players in NPSL, right?

 

This could swing either way, honestly, although you will probably be at least partially right no matter what happens.

Either the MLS continues expansion to (picking a number out of nowhere) 40 teams, to which all of the larger/more valuable markets in USL are poached (Phoenix, San Antonio, Sacramento, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Raleigh, Tampa, St. Louis, etc.) leaving USL with the Colorado Springses, Albuquerques, El Pasos, Memphii, and Birminghams (this is not an unreasonable setup in a closed league environment, really) or if MLS stops at 28 (or so) and USL really ramps up the big market outsiders as an alternative to MLS (reminiscent of NASL, I guess) and, to sweeten the pot, throws in pro/rel with D3, which Jake Edwards has flirted with.

In the former scenario, we definitely would see the stratification you warn against, much worse than we currently have.

In the latter, we have a higher stakes soccerwarz, but maybe we get pro/rel out of it as a competitive advantage.

Exactly, and you noted the problems with closing deadline (and captains generally need to report mid-July, as I understand it), but college players also are not allowed to start the season before May 1st, per NCAA rules. Which means the season can't really start until almost mid-May to have the team playing together at all.

Also worth noting Elm City players were paid.

So I don't mind the pittance part (for now), honestly, and it's probably a necessary evil to get anything off the ground.

Over half of Chattanooga FC's players were post-college this season and a decent percentage of them are local. Yet they were willing to be play for free (and have for a few seasons), I think they'd be ok to make something for their efforts on the field and still keep their day job. The overall quality of the league would certainly go down for a while: say what you will about college players, but they're young, healthy, talented, and because they're free, you can have pretty much as many as you can find room and board for. But I think the quality will eventually work itself back up once the leagues establish themselves and teams figure out recruiting and whatnot.

 

I don't think MLS will go beyond 32 and I don't think USL will bite the hand that feeds it. It will take another NASL 2 style breakout which captures the non-MLS markets and a sizable financial injection, though that would probably mean a closed league until the investors get their money back.

Soccerwarz wouldn't a bad thing as long as we don't get into endless litigation.

If people want to start a soccer league from the bottom up then do it. There are roughly 172 teams at level 4 and 360 teams in level 5 in the US so build a pyramid like non-league clubs did in England then force the issue. But that needs leadership and drive, not whining or entitlement.

 

They're trying, but the point about there being no money in non-division soccer means that people can't really give up their day jobs to just organize a league. You can armchair quarterback with this "stop whining and just coordinate a league's worth of teams, with different goals and agendas in a very small window each year with the entire internet ready to jeer at you if anything goes wrong" and compare it to how an entirely different country - that just so happened to have invented and love the sport, but never mind that! - was able to pull up an amateur league by their bootstraps a century ago, but maybe before you settle into your rhetorical victory you should be apprised of the fact that in fact these clubs aren't sitting around whining but are actually creating the league that would serve this purpose.

But it's definitely more fun to call them names and collect your reps, I get that.

 

Here's a thread about the US Premiership:

More seriously, it looks like ASL teams are involved this as well.

— Beau Dure 🇺🇦🌈🖖☮️ (@duresport) July 31, 2018

 

It's going to take a while and cost $millions and I think people have to be realistic about that but I'm all for it.

You know who I'm referring to, the people who write to the President or maybe the UN believing that it's some sort of human right.

No-one in this thread.

 

Ok, fair enough, I'm sorry. I mean I've followed your posts long enough that I know you sincerely want a healthy and stable pyramid. But, let's be realistic: that's largely an academic exercise for someone in NYC. You won't be without top level soccer again (barring armageddon).

But lower down the food chain it gets much more volatile. For there to be stability in D2 and D3, we've got to have a healthy system beneath them, feeding established and well supported clubs into system, and that means non-division leagues have got to mature into being effective incubators for these teams.

It's less of a hypothetical down here: if bottom of pyramid is a financial crapshoot and grassroots clubs fade away due to lack of opportunities, huge swathes of the country will be without soccer, which would be really bad for the sport at all levels.

 

Brooklyn Italians has been around for over 65 years (it's had various names but it's the same club). Current attendances are less than 100 but given the opportunity and a bit of marketing (maybe a city grant) they could grow into a nice community club.

They're trying, sodas and chips are each $1.