I just got back from the URI graduation. We had ribs in Pawtucket after. I just puked them up after reading your post.
I feel like Garber's decision to release a public statement as opposed to just a private call to caps investors in response to the BC Place option is less about Vancouver's MLS prospects and more a shot across Portland, St. Louis & Montreal's bows. This should be perceived as good news to those clubs who have otherwise not had much direct news lately. At least some of you are still in contention. Vancouver - the BC Place option is a strawman and I believe you are currently just a pawn in Garber's drive to up the demand for slots 19 & 20.
Ok well that is just thinly veiled insanity. Like a cheap local political attack ad, the passage above is bursting with opinion, speculation, and fallacies positioned as fact. Note to anybody reading comments from this guy for the first time - the hatred and anti Portland madness that this guy spews is as sensational and accurate as the National Enquirer. Fun to read maybe, but in the end, a waste of our time. And I know the rule is to resist getting sucked into arguements with the insane, but this is just too comical to ignore. My corrections to Bright's "points". >Portland is a top 25 media market, Rochester is not in the to 50 >StL and PDX are almost identically sized media markets (tied for 22nd) PDX is growing significantly faster. >The fact that StL has had challenges does not lessen the MLS prospects of other candidate cities. The opposite should be true (based on logic). >I doubt you can prove that USL payroll is proportionate to the likelihood of a MLS franchise >The Timbers are funded efficiently and turning a profit (good business) >Portland needs to do nothing to be considered "ahead of Rochester" in MLS franchise contention because they just are. In recent comments by Garber, Portland has been listed as a candidate city for the next round - has Rochester? No. Is Rochester actively pursuing MLS now? No. Back on topic, Vancouver, with their waterfront stadium would and should get in before PDX in my opinion - it would be a real jewel for the sport on this continent. While less than ideal by many accounts, Vancouver in BC place given Kerfoot's deep pockets and the international demographic of the city would still be a strong argument. The idea that TFCs magic will be duplicated in YVR will play (a bit unjustifiably I think) in their favor too. Portland has many positives too including a very wealthy and connected owner, but these points are addressed ad nauseum elsewhere. Nevertheless, relative to Portland, there are many reasons that Vancouver could win out. But as we have seen in Seattle vs. St. Louis, there is no guarantee that the most deserving city (a "true soccer city" as Bright puts it) will get the nod. Now, everybody, sit back and watch as this guy Bright hijacks this thread with more anti Portland hate.
To be fair Paul, I think the MLS ultimately does need Portland to be credible. Since they are below us now, I'm not afraid to say it - those guys in the TA get a lot of respect in the US soccer community for growing good fan support from the ground up in a lower league. It will be tough for MLS to be a credible league without a franchise and fan group like the Timbers in the fold. I believe we can give the Timbers Army a run for their money next year with all our budding supporters groups, but not all cities can do that. Garber loves passionate fans (note his fawning over TFC and streamers in general) and realizes that Portland have proven themselves year in and year out.
Eckstoss, since the expansion decisions won't be carried out on BigSoccer, I don't see why you are getting bent out of shape. You are also ad hominem'ing me, in classic "political attack ad" style, and ignoring the points I made which are not an attack against Portland but an eye-opener to the real situation. We would like to analyze the situation, not listen to chamber of commerce style propaganda. Who are you trying to convince? BS posters aren't going to vote for the next expansion city. My personal feelings about how some influential TA members have soured the PNW soccer scene has nothing to do with my analysis on the current expansion situation. You need to learn how to separate that issue from other issues. Like I said, I would like Portland to be in MLS for the sake of another team close to Seattle (and I was even doing the rah-rah chamber of commerce thing for Portland, too), but the situation is a lot like the situation in Rochester a few years ago. The Timbers currently play in a baseball stadium and the owner is unwilling to go the whole nine-yards on the cost of a new stadium plus expansion fee, which is only going to rise. And my main point is that the ownership group needs more investors. They don't have the juice right now. The traditionally lowest payroll in USL is indicative of that. The speculation that Merritt's dad is or would want to be involved is just that -- speculation. If he wants to be involved, I don't think Merritt would be playing this game of Russian Roulette with the city. They need to act now, or they are going to lose out. St. Louis already has a stadium deal done and signed, unlike Portland. But like Portland, the ownership group needs more juice -- which might come from Merritt's dad, or it might come from somewhere else, or it might not come at all. But it better come real soon. And I apologize, the "true soccer city" thing was a snub, but only because that phrase gets bandied about by more than one city. Rochester likes to call themselves Soccer City USA, too, y'know. I think Portland was in the mix, but with Vancouver looking as certain as can be, I don't think Portland has a shot in the next round or two. And that means the expansion fee will be very high by the time they have another chance, and Merritt Paulson has already stated that he doesn't want to pay a higher expansion fee. The window is finite. Vancouver is in with a moneybags owner, Kerfoot. Montreal is in with a moneybags owner, Saputo, and possibly another one (Gillett) joining him. St. Louis has a stadium deal done; shovels are just waiting for the league to say "yes" to the ownership group. Ives is saying New York is a sure thing like he knows about some back-room dealings going on; and we already know about Wilpon and Mets expressing interest. Atlanta, the capital of the southeast, is a city where MLS NEEDS to be; and the Falcons have expressed interest in owning an MLS team, and the Silverbacks have said they would be willing to partner with them. The mayor of Miami has been pimping a new soccer stadium as part of the new Orange Bowl site; they just need an owner. I think Seattle and Vancouver both in MLS means the PNW will be saturated relative to the southeast. So if there are investors looking to get into MLS, and we count Vancouver and Montreal as givens, which city looks the juiciest for #19? St. Louis? New York? Atlanta? Miami? Portland? We will see how it works out. And while Portland would be nice for selfish reasons, I can see how in the grand scheme of things there are other cities better suited for MLS's needs and more attractive to investors. - Paul
Toronto FC says hi! Besides, I don't think MLS 'needs' Portland to be credible in any way. I'd say the NFL and MLB are doing alright sans the Rose City. (But of course, I want them in MLS as soon as possible. Just don't think it'll happen for a good 5 to 7 years...) Steering this back to Vancouver, with the plans calling for a retractable roof, might there be, dare I say... natural grass?
Paul Hmmm. But you did say "They [Portland] still have a lot of work to do to be considered even ahead of Rochester". If you are stepping back from that, that's fine. Just say so. I was just saying that comment was laughable given Garber's comments in recent months where he mentioned Portland in contention for expansion. Then I talked about why Vancouver would be a good option and could be the front runner of the two. I am not sure what you misread, and confused about why you are so upset.
That's because it's not Baseball or Football where Portland has some crazy groundswell of fan support. If it were, then sure, the NFL and MLB should probably pay attention. I've seen these guys in action in my home stadium in Qwest, and while frustrating for me, it's also impressive. Wouldn't you rather have strong away support come to BMO than, say the Crew? It's because the Timbers have some of the continent's best fan support that MLS - a league that could use a bit more Timbers and Toronto like fans - would lack credibility if it ignored them.
Well, Rochester actually built a soccer specific stadium. And I don't think Rochester is a serious candidate any longer. That was my point. There is still work to do to even be ahead of where Rochester is now. Rochester also had issues with ownership having to ask government to pay for the stadium and having issues coughing up the expansion fee. I am not saying they are equal in terms of media market. Of course Portland beats Rochester there, and that is also why Rochester is not a serious candidate city for MLS. Small potatoes. Portland is on the list, but that doesn't mean they are equal to the other candidates right now. They are on the list because your owner is pursuing an MLS franchise. Seattle was on the list since 2002 for the same reason, but it took us until now to get in, and that was because two moneybags owners came along, one of whom also operates Qwest Field. In order to beat out the other candidates, two things must be accomplished: 1) sort out the stadium situation, which is a bit complex because of the Beavers factor, and 2) increase the financial clout of the current ownership group (which, yes, may mean getting Merritt's dad involved ... if he wants to be). Compare this with Vancouver. Ownership has the bucks to build their own stadium on downtown waterfront land they purchased, and the bucks to pay for a 5-year lease in a refurbished BC Place starting in 2011. Also, the city of Vancouver is willing to splash $200 million at BC Place. With BC Place in play, the stadium situation is handled. Portland is not that far yet. We don't know if the city is willing to splash any cash. And your owner is on record as saying he won't pay for the stadium. - Paul
PDX? YVR? Do I need a boarding pass to particpate in this thread? And if you ask me to remove my shoes...
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=a05aae5a-80c5-4301-a06a-d6141919c2d4 "The initial benefit is that we can be back in the game on the MLS opportunity," said Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi. "If things had stayed the way they were, we would have missed the boat. But the other thing is, seeing the plans for the building, it's quite exciting. It seems like it will be a state-of-the-art building, they are prepared to reconfigure the seating to bring it closer to the field, they will improve the concessions and of course the retractable roof so you're outdoors on a nice summer night." Lenarduzzi said the Whitecaps are working towards signing a five-year lease with B.C. Pavilion Corp., but that doesn't mean the waterfront stadium won't continue to be pursued. "It's taken us five years to get essentially nowhere now," said Lenarduzzi. "So we may as well concern ourselves with the things we can control and still strive to get the approvals [for the waterfront venue]." Lenarduzzi said discussions with the MLS are in the preliminary stage, but doesn't believe there are any hard deadlines for the awarding of the next two franchises -- the asking price of which is expected to be $40 million.
If you're gonna place emphasis on what Paulsen says in the paper on his lead up to asking for public money, you're leaving out that he's had to turn down many prospective investors because he doesn't need anymore. Paulsen is merely asking for what he thinks he can get from the city. He's called MLS "the best opportunity in sports". He's a business man not a philanthropist. Too bad I am a bit confused though, because you always hear in sports, that an owner needs to own his own stadium in order to be proffitable. Paulsen has only owned the Beavers/Timbers for a little more than a year, so the Timbers traditionally low/med wage budget has little to do with him. In 2001 their budget was one of the highest. He's trying to turn a proffit, and perhaps move to MLS not build a USL 1 juggernaught. Was their ever an agreement on the Cascadia Cup format this year? Peace
I am not aware of this. Who did he turn down? Did he turn them down in a USL/baseball context or an MLS context? It's too bad Nike can't really get involved. But it is still low, and arguably lower than ever (I don't have each year's data). The point is that he is nickle and diming things (the team payroll, the stadium, the expansion fee) in the context of a burning hot expansion race against very rich competitors. Turning a small profit in USL is commendable if that is where he wants to stay. But the Timbers may not even be viable in USL when Seattle, Vancouver, and Montreal leave. With Vancouver making this move into BC Place in 2011, Portland has to start showing the money. - Paul
How does bringing in Chris Brown and Takayuki Suzuki classify as "nickel and diming things?" Oh, and he also gave a lifetime season ticket to Timber Jim. That'll cost him in lost ticket revenue.
He was talking about MLS, and he didn't say who he turned down. I think it was in the Portland Tribune, I'll look for it later. Their site is giving me problems, atm. In the end Portland and Vancouver will be in MLS. I think Portland will be make the move first or at the same time as Vancouver. Just a feeling more than anything. I want to know more about Paulsen's plans which will be made public next month.
Personally, I'd like to see as many NASL cities in MLS as possible. There are some, of course, who won't be (and shouldn't have been in NASL either), But I'd love to see both Portland and Vancouver join Seattle on the west coast.
Didn't pretty much every city with a population higher than 200k have a team in the NASL at some point? Wasn't that part of their problem?
The problem wasn't the population, it was the place where they put the team. Otherwise, why put a team in places like Hartford, Las Vegas, Memphis, San Antonio, or Hawaii? Baseball and football bankrolled the NASL in the early days (if you don't believe me, look at who owned the teams), hence the huge stadia and teams in NFL and MLB cities. On the other hand, if the NASL had gone to only soccer "hotbeds," there would have only been about 8 teams, basically another ASL, but with a ton of money (which would have soon been turned into several pounds of money ).
I've noted below the NASL cities that drew consistently well, with the year of their highest annual average attendance in parenthesis. Of those on the list, Portland might be the weakest, having topped 20,000 only once, dropping down to 10,000 by 1980. Still, these are some impressive numbers for the time -- and there aren't nine MLS teams that have drawn as well. New York Cosmos 47,856 (1978) Minnesota Kicks 30,928 (1978) Vancouver Whitecaps 29,166 (1983 -- Opening of BC Place) Tampa Bay Rowdies 28,435 (1980) Seattle Sounders 24,246 (1980) Montreal Manic 23,704 (1981) Portland Timbers 20,515 (1976) Tulsa Roughnecks 19,787 (1980) Washington Diplomats 19,205 (1980) Vancouver drew very well at BC Place when it opened, but the league was already on its last legs, folding after the next season. Still, Seattle, Vancouver, and Montreal are all great soccer markets, and I still think Tampa Bay could be. Minnesota just isn't on the radar, but given its performance it probably should be. With Seattle and Vancouver, Portland would also be a good choice. Link: http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/nasl/nasl-standings.html
Sorry to hear that. Maybe next time go to Smokey Bones in Warwick or Wes' Rib House in Providence. Stay out of the 'bucket-p'tucket entirely. Eating in Pawtucket is about as safe as sunbathing in Iraq. Vancouver will be in this league shortly. Portland will too. As soon as someone/anyone goes to MLS with a check for 40 million dollars Portland Oregon will be in MLS. In fact, Portland Maine would be in MLS if you showed up with a check for 40 million. The key thing you need is money. Its that simple. Everything else can be figured out later. Just bring that check.
I wasn't saying that population was the problem. I was saying that expansion was one of their problems. Which you seem to agree with. Anyway, there's not much merit to what worked or didn't worked 30 years ago applying now. It's a different world out there. Yeah, we can learn stuff from the past, but a lot of things have changed.
I think you are right about the NASL. The Cosmos didn't kill the NASL, having too many Calgary's killed the NASL. They expanded rapidly simply for the expansion fees and effectively cannibalized themselves. It's more than expanding smart, it means being deliberate about it too. For expansion to make sense, you can't just keep cutting smaller pieces of the economic pie, those you bring in have to help make the pie bigger.