As has been pointed out by Rapids fans on these very boards, KSE has splintered off each operation in to its' own LLC. So while the Rapids may have a negative P&L, Dick's Sporting Goods Park is in the black with all of the events it hosts annually. Steve Ross views MLS as minor league and inferior to his vision for professional soccer in the US. Which is basically him being the overlord to Relevent Sports which just happens to be a direct competitor to SUM. Honestly, I'm not sure why he wouldn't want into the MLS ownership club, seeing as many of his NFL brethren are already in it. Then again given his mistreatment of the Dolphins it's likely a blessing he isn't involved with a team in MLS.
Was this posted here lol Everything the light touches is our fortress.#Rapids96 | #Elevate pic.twitter.com/1D1dTQhJxm— Colorado Rapids (@ColoradoRapids) November 12, 2019
Pretty sure this is exactly what happened. Part of the deal with keeping the Crew in Columbus was building a new, downtown stadium. The proverbial gun was pointed at the head of the Crew's existence. The very first story about the relocation confirms this. In July 2018, "We want our stadiums to be downtown — we have that here (in Atlanta), we have that in our new stadium in LA, we have that in almost all of our new markets,” Garber said. New stadiums need to be downtown, except when they don't need to be. Anyway, I'm sorry for posting this. I've gleaned from the tone of some of the recent posts that people are tired of hearing about this and as a Crew fan I should be happy and quiet.
They were last in attendance. Which was my whole point, it didn't work. Second to last in attendance. So no, it isn't working. Two non-downtown stadiums that aren't working, yet Miami is going to play in Ft. Lauderdale. First statement you got right and it was the one you meant to be sarcastic. You need not continue to make these statements if this is indeed a neutral space. The changing/bending of the rules that some markets get over others has noting to do with my hate for Garber and the league hierarchy, it's a fact that needs to be pointed out and discussed. If the Austin posters can't handle that, maybe you should put me on ignore.
Yes it was. As it was in Cincy. And Sac. Don't know about the Lou. Look, I hate to wade back in, especially because I get more incensed by MLS applying the rules for player acquisition and salary cap unevenly (changing the DP rule for LAG; denying to sign a player a certain team had lined up because they didn't think the player moved the needle on attendance enough, etc). Though that sort of thing is mostly in the past (though there was a reported incident of SKC reps telling Crew reps in a trade discussion that since they approved PSVs move to Austin, the Crew did not deserve additional compensation in the proposed deal). And I get that a lot of the fans of the expansion sides (or even newer fans of the original sides, we are 25 years into this) may not recall this stuff. But those of us that do are just a bit more sensitive to it, having been burned previuosly. As to stadia, obviously some markets are more challenging to get stadia built than others (NY, Boston, Philly, DC, Miami), especially downtown. And some markets are more important to the league than others (see same list). But Nashville & Austin get a pass on DT req when Cincy, Columbus, and Sac do not? Again, I get MLS is eager to cash those expansion checks (so maybe the Crew are a special case here). And maybe rich owner + workable stadium deal/situation anywhere is the real requirement. If so, they should just say so.
So, the press box and box suites, but not the stands, nor the field? Hmm.. Okay.. That might explain why they've done so poorly lately...
The Nashville location doesn't seem that far away from downtown. The Austin one is perplexing, but is it really? really?
Are you arguing that Austin and Nashville shouldn't get a pass on the requirement or that Columbus, Cincy, et al. should? Ultimately, markets are different. MLS seemed eager enough to get out of Columbus that making downtown a requirement for keeping the team seems fair. Austin has political and physical geography issues and a super hot real estate market that together make a downtown stadium nigh impossible. I think anyone who thinks it would've been possible to do hasn't been to Austin. And the league still believes the market to be highly viable, as well they should. The demographic, economic, and immigration trends of Austin and Texas make it a no-brainer to have a team here. The metro population almost doubled over the last two decades and is projected to do so again in the next two (https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/10/11/get-ready-for-new-neighbors-austin-to-nearly.html). Should MLS be more explicit about taking different approaches to different markets? Perhaps, if that's your main concern. Too often I see people being purposely obtuse about this "requirement" as if it's a hard and fast rule. Is there some value in having ideal standards like downtown stadiums? I think so. Should we accommodate adjustments to this expectation when a market still seems viable despite not meeting the downtown stadium criteria? IMO, yes.
No, curly, you're revising. The mayor, the MLS lobbyist, and bunch of others always thought Butler Shores was the best target. But then they settled on the toxic chemical site. To be fair, I'm not saying that McKalla won't be a successful venue that sells lots of soccer game tickets, but the goalposts were definitely moved when Suttle couldn't deliver the downtown location. New stadiums need to be downtown, except when they don't need to be.
I'm not entirely sure we disagree here. Not all markets are the same. MLS has a different attitude toward Austin than Columbus. The requirements for the two cities are different because the data are different. MLS can have a heuristic to shoot for downtown stadiums and then adjust when that's not achievable but when they still want to be in the market regardless. Which is what happened in Austin. It just so happens to be different in some other cities.
"Not all markets are the same." By the same token, not all people are the same. In fact, each one of us is different from everyone else. Nevertheless, we still have a right to be treated equally under law. Similarly, every team and every fan base in MLS has a right to be treated equitably under the Laws of the Game and within the rules and procedures of MLS. We either respect principles of equality and the rule of law or we submit to an ad hoc system of arbitrary diktats.
So MLS has given markets an equal chance to get a team. Some teams build stadia in the burbs, others in downtown. Philly fans get to trek to beautiful Chester, PA while NYC fans hop on the sub way and go to Yankee Stadium. Austinites get Anthony Precourt, and Columbus fans get the Haslams. Equal chances not giving equal results.
LOL. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. San Antonio complied with the MLS expansion application process and was shafted. Austin did not apply but was awarded a team. Equal chance, my ass.
You have to be trolling.....right? Does anyone take this guy seriously, or is everything he says clearly moronic to everyone else?
Well since you want to state facts....Columbus didn't play by the expansion application process either and got a team........Austin is technically a relocated franchise, according to MLS anyways. Also, didn't San Antonio submit an application just like all of the other candidate cities?