Yeah, I mean Vergara has even lowered himself to allow players who aren't hispanic but speak Spanish. What a guy! Then he hired Rongen and allows some American non-Spanish speakers in during the draft. Whats next? Good thing they got rid of that Stewart guy already.
I say let MLS Toronto stay untill a proper D1 league in Canada is formed, and then let MLS Toronto join that league. I would love the day when the best club teams of the Carribean, MFL, MLS, and CPL (Canadian Premier League) face off on the Cocacaf CHampions League.
I'm speculating, but I wonder if MLS might get at least a modest TV contract. Also, SUM gets its foot into the door of the Canadian market. Also, there's a pretty good chance that a Toronto franchise will be stronger than the 14th US market. Also, if Rochester is the 13th market, then I think you've got some cool derby potential. Finally, I expect it would make MLS sponsorhips more lucrative for the league. Player eligibility rules are gonna be a huge headache. To me, that's a very large problem. The only thing that makes sense would be for Canucks to count as domestics, or else the Toronto team can't make trades. But I don't know if that's even legal. Secondarily, I think a Toronto team has to be clearly better than the US market it beats out. A Toronto team is a fallback. But man, that's a huge city, a great city that I think players would love to live in. What US city that is a candidate is close in size? I would guess only Houston and Philly. A final problem would be exchange rate issues. With the current US fiscal problems, that's less of a problem than it was 2 years ago, but still....
Excellent, excellent point. Without Vergara, this issue would still be a stickler. With Vergara, it's drawing to an inside straight.
swedcrip, IMO, your optimism about US soccer markets borders on delusional. I write that in a positive, loving way. But really, Toronto is a large, prosperous, metropolitan city. No way MLS can find any markets better, and only 1 or 2 as good. Yeah, it's forbidden, except for the ~10 cases that even I can name where it isn't. The clearest analogy, to me, is the NZ team in the Aussie league. Or the Luxembourg team in (I think) Belgium. (Vaduz, I think.) A Liechtenstein team plays in Switzerland. And of course, Monaco plays in France. And 3 Welsh teams play in England, and one English team plays in Scotland. Canada has vastly more people than NZ or Luxembourg or Monaco. But the sheer size of the country!!!! Tell me how Canada could construct a 10 team league. Then think about the travel costs, and the even-by-MLS-standards lack of away support. Could Canada's 10th biggest market draw even 5000 fans per game to first division soccer? Even if you give, say, Toronto and Montreal two clubs each, could Canada's 8th biggest market compete with the 2nd biggest Montreal team?
but isn't that what baseball and basketball thought? I'm not sure they would expand to Toronto if given the choice again. If SLC can support MLS, there's gotta be 6 more markets out of all the ones I listed. I'll take Seattle, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, Tampa, and Miami before I start feeling pressure to have Toronto. I'll agree that Toronto would have to be more than marginally better than the 13th or 14th US market. I'm not sold that it is. SSS and ownership are all that really matter here and it does look like Garber is seriously considering Toronto. But the pacific northwest and southeast are needed for MLS's "geographic footprint" IMO. I'm in Tampa and noone around here as a regional team, Dallas and DC being the closest. Houston looks really primed to take on one of the gadzillion emerging Mexican investors. I'm not sold that Toronto is a better market. Maybe if the Raptors could keep players happy or if the Blue Jays could play in something other than a stadium that's already outdated yet still wallowing in debt, then maybe you could convince me that sharing a CFL stadium during the same season is worth it. But I'm not totally decided, I'll wait to see what ownership emerges and then I MIGHT actually support the idea. But I do believe the US will in my lifetime have 20 viable pro soccer markets.
Baseball shot itself in the foot here in Canada, but why does everyone on these boards think the Raptors have been some sort of monumental failure? Attendance figures for the past two NBA seasons put Toronto in 10th and 8th, respectively, which is very good considering they are a young franchise in a city that is not traditionally a basketball town. I find it incredibly ironic that fans of a young, fledgling league that is still trying to establish its audience are so quick to point to attendance "problems" here in Toronto in other sports as a reason not to expand here.
It's not attendance. It's financial. I'll admit I don't know that much about the Raptors, but there is usually a player wanting out. And they haven't been serious contenders for a title in quite a while. I don't know what they add to the bottom line of the NBA, but claiming their the 3rd or 4th most important market in North America to sports leagues, I don't find that justified. I'm not sold that the benefit will outweigh the headaches. But if strong ownership steps up, I'll listen. I am really concerned about a "permanent home"/"SSS" with Field Turf. I'm not sold on it either.
Why are we comparing basketball and baseball in the US, to soccer in the US?????? 1. SLC hasn't succeeded yet. 2. All the other cities you name have baseball teams. 3. Atlanta would not make my top 30 list. Tampa and Miami are proven failures. So, I think you'll now agree that Toronto is lookin' pretty good.
cause they're other sports not name hockey that have expanded into Canada? Tampa and Miami aren't proven failures. Neither had the right ownership (or air-conditioned domed SSS ) Attendance wasn't much different from several other MLS markets (getting publicly supported SSS's right now). If Glazer had jumped in or Horowitz had deeper markets, Florida could do just as well as Dallas, Denver, or SJ (ok I agree that doesn't say much, but they're all kickin' for now) I don't think MLS needs to go past 16 teams for the next 5-10 years. I think there will be 4 viable soccer markets. If Chivas is a run-away success, a second team in Dallas, Chicago and one in Houston are definitely not out of the question. The ownership is already tracking MLS. SLC has a commited owner. Has 2 cities competing to build a SSS (likely a deal within 6 months IMO). It'll succeed (I'll guarantee it ok?). I'm not sold that Canadians care about soccer any more (even the same) as than Americans do. You listed some of the problems already. But judging by the latest rumors, Toronto is in strong position (but so have countless other cities been).
How much do you know of those situations? Probley not much. Kingz FC is under the control of the Australian Soccer Assoc. and not the governing body in New Zealand. Kingz FC can't represent the Australian League (or the NSL before it) or New Zealand in OFC Club competitions. Monaco answers to the French authorities but has gotten away with some things thanks to Monaco's status. One of those issues has been the hiring of foreign players. FC Vaduz plays in the Swiss league and is answerable to the Swiss FA. It can't represent it's principlity or even Switzerland if it were to make it to the CL. As for Berwick, Swansea, Cardiff, and Wrexham, they likely wouldn't get a shot in Europe if they were to remain in the English system. A pattern is emerging here I see.... As for other matters Stadium- They would be sharing the stadium with the Argos and would likely be dropped to a second-tier status when it comes to game dates and what they might draw from stadium revenue. The field will be FieldTurf with lines painted on them. TV- Any team would have to pay a network in order to carry their games. Any of the major networks would back out at the idea of hosting games. TSN would shy away since the MLS season runs in line with the CFL season. CFL is a big money maker for TSN and they wouldn't want to seem to threaten it by bringing MLS on board. Sportsnet is own by Ted Rogers and uses it to plug his own Blue Jays duing the summer. Think he would push his Jays aside for MLS? Good Luck. Sponsors- Since MLS has done good in getting sponsors for it's league, it would be hard to decide if any Canadian sponsors are worth bringing on board.
Let's just stop it right here for a second. Doyle, every time someone posts an argument that disagrees with your point of view, you attack that person's knowledge on the subject, as if you being wrong about something is absolutely impossible. I'm sure the people running MLS will have their bases covered if Toronto were indeed to get a team. MLS is a league run by a bunch of billionaire businessmen who are not going to let a technicality get in the way of their plans. So they'll be second in line for the 9 Friday home dates that the Argos play. Big deal. MLS matches are usually on Saturdays anyways. Just like the rest of MLS. Why would MLS threaten TSN's Friday night CFL broadcasts? By your logic, TSN will never sign a deal with any other league ever again because it may threaten their CFL broadcasts. They do show other sports on TSN, you know. See above. This is the most asinine thing I have read from you in a long time. So MLS is going to refuse any additional revenue that Canadian sponsors may bring into the league, because they've "done good" in getting sponsors so far? What kind of logic is this? What part of these decisions would be hard? More money for the league = good. That is the simplest business formula there is, and I can guarantee you this is the formula they are following.
Superdave wasn't sure on some of his arguments and I simply pointed that out in my reply to his point. Only you would get out of joint over such a statement. You missed the point of that quote. Try Again. Argos will be the main tennant and anything after that will be filler. It will get what it wants out of the stadium to the point of screwing MLS out of prime dates. MLS and CFL have the same type of mindset when it comes to developing a sked. They both play games during the course of a week to maximize all potentials. Toronto would pay far more for MLS broadcast since it's an unknown product to the people of Toronto at large. The other MLS teams will be in a position to be paid for broadcast rights. Another lack of thinking on your part. TSN shows games throughout the week. That includes games on a Saturday. TSN will certainly be pushing for the CFL to have more games on Fri. and Sat. since they are the biggest shot at ratings. If you even bother to watch TSN, they find programs that would get them much more in return than MLS would. TSN= Bad Carbon Copy of ESPN. Sportsnet won't move the Blue Jays for soccer. Rogers finds a bigger return by showing European games and even A-League games than he would putting MLS on the sked. Why don't you go read the sponsors that MLS has under it's belt. Then try to name a sponsor in Canada that would provide any benfit to MLS. I'll sit back and shoot them down at every angle. The only money TO can provide to MLS is the expansion fee since the league is still bleeding red ink. We of course know many leagues that followed the expansion trail.
You're so cute when you're being melodramatic. Which goals are those, sunshine? So far as I know, ownership's #1 stated goal is "make money," any team's fanbase's #1 goal is "see the local XI win lots of games," and players' #1 goal is "make money." Which of those goals would not be shared? Against what, exactly? Those rampaging huns from the North? You know, if you want me to start taking your posts a little more seriously and not merely as a launching point for smartassed replies, you're going to have to actually read what I write, not what you THINK I wrote, lambchop. (Hint: Scratch all those idiotic assumptions that you're making about "ambassadorial missions" and "internationalist statements" and whatever other phrases you're cribbing from this month's Black Helicopter Monthly.) I'm disappointed that you got this far into your post without using the word "aggro," cupcake. WHERE HAS THE MAGIC GONE? You do know that "Canadian Bacon" was only a comedy, not an actual documentary or propaganda film, don't you? See, that's wrong. FIFA doesn't care about any of that crap. They just care about making the most money with the least amount of effort -- or aggravation. Cuban beer? What? Do us all a favor and lay off the mescaline before you bless us with your next masterpiece, honeybunch.
This one sentence alone says it all. You're way too set in your ways to even bother considering an opinion that differs from your one. I can just see the bigwigs at MLS now: "Uh, sorry CIBC, we're not interested in your money. You see, we already have Yahoo, Budweiser and Pepsi on board. You guys are just a lowly Canadian bank, and are therefore not big enough to give us money that we so sorely need. Why don't you guys try the A-League instead?"
Chowder is an EXTREME example of the bigsoccer poster who sees MLS thru the prism of what it can do for the Nats. The thing is, he never seems to examine that assumption independently of whatever issue brings it up. He should. Anschutz and Hunt are, between them, about 140 years old. MLS will not run forever as a charity. I have serious doubts about a Toronto franchise, but my doubts are based on its contributions (or the opposite thereof) to the profitability and stability of MLS. Full stop.
NBA = BIG MONEY. MLS = chump change. MLB and NBA players are working so that they never have to work a day in their lives. The higher % of taxes in Canada cuts in big-time to their goals. MLS players are working essentially out of fun; if they're really good, then to set themselves up for a safe economic future. The higher % of income tax wouldn't phase them quite as much. Toronto adds less to the NBA bottom line (%-wise) than a healthy MLS team in an economically benefitial SSS would to the league. Plus, w/ a strong Canadian national team, any WCQ in the US would generate more interest (and more revenue) for SUM and the particular MLS owner whose stadium is used for a given date. Ditto for Toronto hosting a WCQ: an MLS owner would benefit financially.
Hello, Dave: I'll happily respond to your assertions because even when venom does get the best of you, as it does me at times, and even when you are too quick to try to connect the dots, as you are in this case, you still go about things with humor and intelligence. I can see why you might think that I view the MLS expansion debates through the prism of US national team development. However, a closer look will indicate that I rarely, if ever, cite OUR national team when I argue against Canadian involvement in MLS. (Honestly, I'm not worried that a Canadian MLS team might impede the widening of the USNT pool; I would be dishonest through omission if I did not admit concern that it could widen the Canadian pool. The competitive neighbor in me does not see that as desired nor as a goal or responsibility of MLS). My main concern, expressed many times, is that, given the prickliness and territorialism inherent in any cross-border activity, trouble is inevitable with a Canadian MLS team. I don't think that MLS can afford the distraction. That is my argument based on practical considerations. I've also stated many times that it is extremely pessimistic to dismiss the possibility of a succesful Canadian league. I also don't feel that MLS should be a solution to Canada's problems. I also believe that MLS and all its teams should always be under the jurisdicition, or subject to the jurisdiction, of only one federation. That is my argument based on principle. I have, however, considered how an MLS team in Canada may benefit MLS. In fairness to you, however, I have never expressed as much, or discussed it, on these forums so you could not possibly have known better. But let's assume that your assertion of me and "EXTREME" example seeing MLS through the prism is correct (even though it isn't). I would not need to be extreme in my opposition because what I argue for, a US-only MLS, is something conventional, something in accordance with FIFA guidelines.
This, by the way, from MLS, for what it's worth: MLS PHILOSOPHY Major League Soccer has made great strides during its first eight seasons, both on and off the field. The League's goal is to become the world's most competitive and prestigious soccer leagues as well as one of America's premier sports and entertainment properties. As MLS continues to develop, the League has created five guiding principles for all aspects of League business: Become the meeting place for U.S. soccer fans Reflect inclusiveness and diversity Stay young in attitude, style and fan profile Express and evoke passion for soccer Be the inspirational destination point for today's soccer-playing youth In addition, MLS will continue to assist and improve the performance of U.S. National Teams in domestic and international competitions on all levels. http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/about/
Someone did post this on this thread, did they not? Someone else seems to have ignored it. My intent with this post is not to challenge what has been asserted in the quote but to point out that the assertion was, in fact, made right here on this thread.