Austin's problems are mostly down to flood damage to their stadium and not being able to find a suitable stadium after. I don't blame the USL for Austin sitting a season out, I just blame extreme weather events.
Austin was also ran terribly. I heard somewhere that we lost 1 million last season. So the stadium situation didn't help, but our front office was f***ing terrible.
part of those loss's could be due to stadium rent and with the flood damage to the stadium that rent couldn't have been going in the right direction. They realize they needed a better stadium solution (to help control those costs and used the flood as a good reason to punt the year). I think they'll sit out until they can figure a way to get a stadium solution that works for them (not only low rent, but they get $$ from concessions, etc). Tons of different rental agreements, heck they could have been giving a % of each ticket to whoever owns House Stadium which would dent their ability to make money as well.
they were in trouble far before the floods. before the season they offered their whole roster to every team but no one wanted to pay the austin players that much. (way overpaid on almost every player) Before that happened they called Rochester offering cash for Obasi, but rochester didnt sell. Now obasi signed with ottawa (Austin's coach last season) because they are paying him 4x the amount he made in rochester. Rhinos coach bob lilley is not about overpaying players when he can get the same talent for cheap.
Completely understand what you're saying and I wasn't meaning to imply that overspending for players wasn't happening. Heck, hopefully it was a learning experience for them and when they come back they do so with a more reasonable approach to the payroll. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of ways to "lose $1M" ... and it can come from many things (like bad rent, reduced revenue through lease agreement, etc) ... which are also things that if they were happening, would have been happening prior to the flood as well as the high payroll. I somewhat commend them from realizing that path wouldn't work and that simply finding another high school football field to rent wasn't smart. If they truly want to get back into the league, finding the right stadium situation and not making the payroll mistakes from the past will likely save them from completely closing up shop. Either way, we'll see how it progresses. Would be good to have them along with San Antonio, RGVFC and maybe a FCDallas II team ... LOTS of talent in Texas that they could all help develop!
It was more than the flood. House Stadium was open again in the fall for high school football. http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/12908363-story The Aztex could be right back in House if the flood was the issue. But it wasn't. They were already on a waiver from the USL that allowed them to play at House for one year. That waiver was not going to be extended unless they could show a plan to move into a more soccer friendly stadium. That was going to happen with or without the flood. They still don't have a plan for a soccer stadium so they are on hiatus. They will be on hiatus until they figure that out.
I hope they figure it out and are back for 2017. As a fan of a team in the league, it would be nice to see San Antonio vs Austin.
2016 USL format announced! 30-game season, March 25 to September 25. 16-team playoff thereafter. The conference alignment is as expected.
At the Season ticket party this week. They said players are going through the approval process and could be announced next week. Same timeframe with name. But not holding my breathe on the team name and branding
Yes, but you have to have somewhere to build the stadium and have the $ to do so. From my understanding where to build it with approval is the major issue. Not a lot of room downtown where they want to build it.
http://www.socceramerica.com/article/68150/usl-preview-twenty-key-offseason-moves.html?edition=15325 USL Preview: Twenty key offseason moves March 22nd, 2016 11:34PM
How independent does that really make RGV? I thought maybe because they were eligible we would see more of this type of arrangement going forward in USL expansion.
This announcement makes RGVFC as independent as they always have been. Which is not very. On the 2nd point, this arrangement was not designed to keep RGVFC eligible for the Open Cup. It was seen by the Dynamo FO as a way to have a USL team for development but without footing the entire cost. And to do some marketing/outreach to another part of Texas. Whether or not we see more of this type of arrangement will depend on whether it works out financially for the Dynamo and the Valley partner, and if it produces players at roughly the same rate as the MLS2 teams. That's what other MLS teams will be paying attention to, not whether or not the team plays in the Open Cup.
I thought there was financial incentive to participate in the USOC that would be attractive to an independent ownership group. Not only at the gate revenue, but the potential prize money, potential exposure which advertisers would look at. I do get what you are saying though, it was just to cut the costs down on the Houston side of things, how much did the independent group think this through though? They seem to have gotten the shortest end of the stick with the least amount of support...
What? There is a financial incentive to participate in the Open Cup? I think that is a reach. As a USL team you mostly have a chance to host a couple of games on short notice. That is hard to sell to both the public and sponsors. And you have a better chance of taking some long road trips mid-week during your season. The RGVFC ownership know exactly what they are getting. It is pretty much the same deal as the NBA-D League team that they own. They get a "name brand" to attach to their team and they get the player and coach costs covered or at least subsidized so they can concentrate selling tickets and sponsorships. That is not a small amount of support. The "short end of the stick" of that is not being able to play in the Open Cup. That is probably not seen as much of a stick.
I really doubt the group expected to be cut out from USOC by Dynamo going in to the agreement. Especially after the Jan 7th changes to whom could enter that included themselves. I suppose you're right though, its too early to call whether or not they got shafted or not. We'll just see how it plays out then.
so their partners requested they not play? ... if i started a mens league with a friend, then that friend requested i not play, i would be pretty upset. especially if im footing the bill, which is seems RGV does (independent owners, not houston)
But the Dynamo pays for the coach technical staff and players. More than likely don't want to cup tie players to RGVFC in case they need them for their own cup run.
still, if im the owner of that team i feel like im getting shafted. Especially after all this time with the impression that the team will be competing in the tournament.
As someone else mentioned, not having to play in the Open Cup is not exactly a Fate Worse Than Death.