MLS being less $$$ is exactly my point. It has low administrative costs relative to the other leagues. Dealing with an international franchise would make things much more complex. MLS would likely be subject to Canadian laws. Labor laws. Single-entity tested all over again? I'm not sure MLS wants to take on this added complexity. Garber does seem to be considering Toronto. A "SSS" (still not willing to call it that) and if ownership emerges, it's worth considering. But it's not like there aren't a lot of potential negative issues.
"If, If, If, If" is all sports fans in the southeast know. Swed, I respect your enthusiasm, but look at Tampa/Miami's failures both in MLS, and in MLB. Heck, Atlanta can't sell out playoff games for the Braves! While we'd all love for MLS to have that "geographic footprint," it may not be entirely necessary. As the NHL has discovered, "NASCARland" doesn't take too kindly to "them there new sports" down in Dixie. But you forget the vast numbers of immigrants from soccer-loving countries to Canada; A huge concentration of these immigrants are centered around Toronto. But if you're trying to make the argument that Atlanta/Tampa/Miami/[Other Southeastern US city] are: 1. Better sports towns than Toronto, 2. More cosmopolitan than Tororto, or 3. More likely to succeed in MLS than Toronto, the volumes of evidence [support, viewership/listenership, etc. to anything other than NASCAR] suggest otherwise. For my money, I'd rather [Sarcasm] "suffer the indemnity of one or two (strong) Canadian franchises" than enjoy weak franchises anywhere in the Southeast.
MLS is at 12 now. No more than 16 in the next 5 years IMO. There's plenty of markets outside of the SE with potential. I think eventually, MLS will want a team in the SE. MLS learned long ago not to bank on "immigrant communities". That's never been a huge share of MLS attendance. Eventually if MLS is to be limited to 18-20 teams (Big if, but definitely a possiblity), then Toronto means one less spot out of 6-8 for a US market. And in the next 10 or so years, I think 6-8 US markets will be VIABLE. If expansion is needed sooner, 4 markets in the next couple of years. Toronto will likely get in. Otherwise I don't see the wisdom in it. If MLS HQ thinks it can run a team in Canada without too much added headache regarding foreign laws, exchange rates, etc and the international/domestic player classification issue can be worked out, the other obstacles aren't that much and I'd consider it. But before you rag on the southeast, show me a truly successful franchise outside of hockey in Canada. Expos, Grizzlies - nope. Blue Jays - http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2004/11/29/740151-cp.html http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/000931.html not really Raptors - don't think I have ever watched a Raptors playoff game. Not sure if they've made it, but I watch a lot of the NBA playoffs I'm not willing to write off the entire southeast cause I'm sure Toronto would be a better market.
Having lived in NASCARland, I will respectfully disagree. There isn't a single market in the SE that I would consider even remotely viable; This is largely due to the underwhelming support for existing team sports franchises. (See Ted Turner's underwhelming numbers for a dynastic MLB team, see the middling attendance for the twice-champions Marlins' games.) This is especially true, given that MLS needs @sses in the seats to remain viable. Ask Vergara/Team Pyramid Scheme in LA about this statement... Why is this material to the discussion at all? The only thing that matters to the billionaire businessmen/philanthropists of MLS is Business. Feelings of soccer jingoism, feelings of nationalistic pride take a back seat to the feelings of money in the coffers. Toronto is, by every measurable means, far superior to every market in the SE of the US for 1st Division soccer. The legal precedence of many US-based leagues that precede MLS' venture into Canada make this less than insignificant. Canada, the most "socialist" of the republics in North America, would not likely be opposed to a "socialist" league like MLS. The financial headaches of no one attending matches in Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, etc.. are likely to be more significant than anything the legal system of Canada can muster. Of course, the NBA and MLB both have far fewer "socialist" market controls governing their leagues' behaviour, particularly for the MLB. Compound this with the strike and the moronic MLB league office and cretinous Montreal front office, and the Expos go away. The NBA suffers from the huge salaries being attenuated significantly by Canadian taxes; This is not a concern for the decidedly average salaries in MLS. For MLS, it is the combination of small [by sports standards] salaries and socialist controls that makes Toronto all the more viable. How about this: Show me a successful franchise in the SE outside of MLB, NBA, or the NFL. [all established leagues] They've tried hockey in Atlanta before, and Calgary now enjoys the former Atlanta Flames. [I give the Thrashers and Preditors (sp.) all of 5 years before they go away...] They've tried 1st division soccer many times in many places in the SE, and all attempts have failed. But, sh!+, we got them-there NASCAR in Talladega, Daytona, and purty-near ever-where in Dixie! I'm willing to write off the entire southeast. Some products have broad-based appeal, and some appeal to a portion of the populace. Many people like to buy a Ford, and far fewer like to buy Minis. Many people like McDonald's, and far fewer buy from mom & pop hot dog stands. In the same way, MLS must understand that it is a niche (sp.) league with appeal to a certain portion of consumers. The product has yet to expand beyond its core consumers. This is one thing that the NHL has failed to realize. As such, the NHL suffers, their product suffers, their clientele [especially their core clientele] suffer. Should MLS make the mistake of entering a Southeast market in the next ~25 years or so, MLS' product would suffer as well. Unfortunately for our soccer-loving friends in the Southeast, there are too few of you down there. I'm afraid the Southeast lies far outside MLS' "niche." (sp.)
No. That was a sarcastic remark, pointing the ludicrous nature of what you said before regarding MLS turning down additional sponsor money because they've already got big name sponsors on board. Plus, I'm not the one stating that I'll sit here and shoot down anything you say. While I've always been pro MLS, a lot of my opinions on the subject have changed since this discussion came up, as people brought arguments to the table that I hadn't considered. Thus, my posts have changed accordingly. An example of this is the fact that I supported MLS in Toronto at pretty much any cost, as I really have no faith in the A-League (USL div. 1, whatever) to act as a development tool for our national team to rise to the next level. I was rather naive in thinking that a lone MLS team would improve our players enough to compete consistently in CONCACAF. Over time, I was convinced that MLS will not work in Canada (from a national team perspective) unless there are at least two (and hopefullly three) MLS teams here. Your posts, on the other hand, are always along the exact same track. Anyone who is in favour of MLS doesn't know what they're talking about, any MLS team will be overrun by American players, blah blah blah.
What kind of statement is that. Rule out all the other true pro leagues in the country than the NHL and ask for an answer? That's some sort of twisted NHL-centric sports view. Name to me any other successful leagues first. The arena looked pretty full to me during the Stanley Cup playoffs here in Tampa. The team won. The team was profitable this year. The southeast is booming in population growth. I never said expand to the southeast now. But save a spot for 8-10 years from now. Charelston Battery are actually pretty successful. Arena football? Doing pretty well here. Even if the Braves don't fill their stadium, they're a successful franchise. So is most of the NFL teams in the southeast. Why did the NHL put half of expansion teams here the last 10-20 years? It's with an eye on the future. Towns like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit are stagnant in growth. And don't think I'm just pro-SE, there's a very good chance I won't live in the SE next year. PS, I don't like NASCAR. The rest of your post I really didn't feel like we were having the same discussion, so if want, try again, otherwise let's move on. I actually think the "geographic footprint" concept is important. Give all areas of the country at least a regional team. Right now the Pacific Northwest and Southeast have no vested interest in MLS.
Expansion of the league is good. Careful expansion is better. Personally, I would not prefer to have non-US teams in our top flight, but that's a personal preference. I won't stop going to my team's home matches if Canada gets a club. I just wonder if expanding to Canada at this juncture is such an imperative. I mean, if it takes any energy away from the league's ability to get more American cities on board, I'm not too happy about it. But whatever.
How 'bout we just stop talking about Atlanta? I really don't give a rat's you-know-what if we ever get a team here anymore. I'm sick of the vitriol (if you don't know what it means, there's this wonderful device called a dictionary), the pointless comparisons, and how Atlanta doesn't support the Braves. Just take Atlanta out of the mix. We all get your point. And we (or rather, I) no longer care. The anti-Atlanta crowd has just reached the over-saturation point.
Because the NHL is the only league that, like MLS, recieves next to ZERO TV money. This is a league that requires @sses in the seats to make money, inasmuch as MLS. Additionally, the principle of comparing like "emerging" leagues in areas that are not traditionally hockey/soccer towns applies here: The SE isn't known for kids growing up to be the left wing for the Lightning; Toronto isn't known for kids dreaming of becoming the Canadian #10. But if I had to bet, I'd put the mortgage money on the latter rather than the former. If I wanted a higher probability of success, I'd put up a 2.5 mile oval anywhere in the SE, and probably make more money than in any other professional sports-business venture down there. Put in a SSS in the SE, and you'd draw crawdads, flies, and river rats.
Considering that really hasn't been done (I wouldn't count Lockhardt), that's an assumption that I don't agree with. Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Miami are to me clearly viable with a SSS (domed preferably ). Nashville, New Orleans, Raleigh, Orlando, and maybe memphis and Jacksonville too. There's no baseball competition in most of these (really only Atlanta and maybe Miami). 1 team for all these markets is not too much to ask.
Am I allowed to make a personal, aesthetic objection to a Toronto franchise? I can barely stand watching games from Giants Stadium as is--yet another Field Turf/football lines set-up would be infuriating to me. It just isn't the same game. Any game where the slide tackle is virtually eliminated from the standard defensive repertoire isn't soccer anymore. I have nothing against Toronto personally, in fact it's a very appealing place to spend a week, although having recently been there on business, I can say that there's a huge East Asian and South Asian population that I can't imagine cares a whole lot for soccer. Why India never took to the game, I don't know, but they clearly didn't. The best immigrant bases for soccer are Latin American, African, Middle Eastern, and I saw a lot more Asian influence up there.
The Toronto Stadium is a Joint venture between the Argos Football Team and the Canadian Soccer Association. It will be home base for all of Canada's National Soccer teams and the MLS Toronto team. The Argos use it 10 times a year.
Canadians play in Europe where they earn more and play against better competition than in the MLS. Thats why they are not teaaring up the MLS.
How can 9 home dates cause a scheduling Problem. 9 dates out of a potential 90+ available home dates between April and October.
How does this matter? Will they come back for less pay for a Toronto team? If not, the same problem exists.
It doesn't appear that way. But they at least mention it. I posted that so that we will notice that they do not mention that making money is one of the guiding principles. I think that it should be. But they have not listed it as some here have asserted. Remember that how all of this may affect the national team is not really a concern for me.
I don't have any grave objections to a Toronto team. However, I doubt that they can come up with the necessary financial package to start a club. Also, Rochester has already started construction on their own SSS. Even Detroit or St. Louis could leapfrog them.
Been over it for a loooong time. Man, you are so twelve years ago. FWIW, the Braves didn't deserve to win that year. Also, I was rooting for the Jays the next year, when Joe Carter hit that homer to beat the Phillies (I've been a Jays fan since '77, so get off me). Cito Gaston was the man back then. BTW: I'd like to see Toronto get MLS. Just quit talking about Atlanta. Peace .
Another potential investor has just been revealed on Soccercentral (Canadian soccer magazine show), and this one's a doozy. Richard Peddie, president of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE), did a 5 minute interview speaking of his interest in the league, although it is at this point guardedly cautious. For those that don't know MLSE owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Raptors, the Air Canada Centre, two digital cable networks and they will be bringing in the Leafs' farm team to play in the Ricoh Coliseum in 2005. Rumours abound that they are also looking at buying the Blue Jays/SkyDome from Rogers Communications, and they had flirted with buying the Argos about a year ago, before the football team were bought by their current owners. This is just about the biggest investor that MLS could court for this market, and according to Soccercentral, it's the investor that MLS would prefer. The only problem that MLSE would have is not owning an appropriate stadium, although I'd assume that a deal would be worked out with York/Argos for shared use of the new stadium being built there for the 2007 U-20 WC.