for God's sake. don;t make the huge mistake of joining the MLS. You will never have the control of players, stadium and games as you do in the USL. Wait until Toronto FC fails ... and you will be glad you stayed in the USL. Besides, how can you miss the fun of beating the MLS teams every year in the Open Cup ? Rochester is a great soccer town. They definately DO NOT need MLS. MLS needs Rochester. With teams like Colorado drawing 3,000 and Metro .. .er Red Bull drawing 4,000 ... why oh why would you want to be in the MLS ?????
It's ok to bash the USL .. just don't do it from the MLS ! Especially NY Red Bull ... if you lost money for every empty seat then Giants Stadium would break you finanacially in about 3 seconds. If not for a few rap artists and the Cosmos reunion, have you had more than 3 people come to a Red Bulls game ... (the fat Meadowlands security guards don't count). If you want to match club to club USL to MLS ... you might have a slight edge as Miami (expansion club) and Toronto (going to M(iserable)League soccer proped the bottom of USL. However, empty seats in Colorado, Kansas City, New England and NY make for 4 good legs for a useless table. Rochester, Montreal, Puerto Rico and Charleston would outdraw them. ROCHESTER stay in the USL !
at the risk of turning this into a serious topic, MLS might not be right for Rochester (and may never be)... as long as the USL remains viable they seem to be in their element (big fish in a small pond, making a little money)... by the time that SSS are built in the real money drains in MLS (NY, DC), I doubt that Rochester will have the deep pockets to afford steeper entry costs... having grown up in upstate NY, I know that they have the fans and the local interest/support, but that will not be enough... second division may well be right for the Rhinos... rand
Montreal averages around 11,000 same as your club lately.. Their fans however are a bit more passionate than the typical RBNY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGx2XIONTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK4xdaXnNb8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMUYitRDB9s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCuAZ81xCLw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02tr-FPgrD0
i rarely c any games with attendance less then 10,000 with the exception of colorado and KC, but the USL has a lower level of soccer and only 3 teams have any skill in comparison to MLS and thats Vancouver Montreal and Rochester oo and where r all ur good players going... to MLS
This year's final (unofficial) attendance numbers, with the corresponding percentage change in average announced attendance from 2005: Team.........G....Total...Avg...... Change Montreal....14..161,762..11,554.... +3.4% Rochester...14..140,892..10,064.... +5.2% Portland....14...78,048...5,575.... +0.4% Puerto Rico.14...75,328...5,381....+5.3% Vancouver...14...71,191...5,085.... .0.0% Seattle.....14...53,562...3,826...+ 32.6% Charleston..14...50,791...3,628.... -0.6% Minnesota...14...36,553...2,611...-16.7% Atlanta.....14...32,177...2,298...+ 27.3% Va.Beach....14...30,413...2,172...+ 75.2% Miami.......14...29,037...2,074.... .N/A Toronto.....14...24,245...1,732...-29.8% LEAGUE.....168..783,999...4,667.... +3.1% Just so you can compare.
Re: Whatever you do...No MLS! Why doesn't MLS "invite" Rochester to be the 14th team in the league for the 2007 season? There are some particulars that would have to be worked out but it wouldn't be impossible and may very well be something that MLS and USL could extend into the future (ie modified "pro/rel" - if a "USL" club finishes in last place in MLS they are relegated back to USL with the USL champion invited to play in MLS the next season. If the "USL" club finishes higher in the league then they should be invited to stay in MLS the next season. MLS-born clubs always remain in MLS, no matter where they finish). 1) Inviting USL clubs to play a season in MLS will benefit MLS by allowing them expand at a slightly slower pace, while maintaining "traditional" league structure, like having an even amount of clubs. 2) USL clubs would not be forced to accept the invitation to move up - if they decline, offer the opportunity to another club. 3) USL clubs would maintain their roster rules from the USL - but MLS should provide a stipend for travel and a lump sum that the USL club would use to acquire additional players. I'm certain USL would have significant issues with losing their best club for a season but I think those issues could be mitigated by the benefits the club would receive by playing at a higher level, even if for just a season. Rochester would make more money, which they can invest directly in their club. If the season does not work out they can always return to the USL the next season. Allowing USL clubs to retain their USL roster rules could help MLS begin to phase out SEM. Any of the clubs who has a unique owner could choose to take their team "off the grid" to allow that team greater freedom to construct their roster and be a product of their own determination. For example, Red Bull sees crazy growth after Red Bull Park comes online in 08 and decides that SEM is cramping their style so they decide to go solo for 09. This may also help the league chip away at the "parity problem", most recently mentioned by Bruce Arena. There would need to be a lot of compromise for some semblance of this plan to be pulled off but I think there are enough carrots in the deal to make it a worthwhile proposition for the USL clubs. Outside of some Phil Anshutz pocket money ($2M-$5M?) I think it would be win-win for MLS. Plans are for MLS to expand to 16 teams by 2010. If this idea were to prove viable MLS could expand to 16+2, with USL clubs moving up and down each season. If MLS has trouble expanding to new cities they could stay at 13+1 or 14+2 until they're able to grow again. Just my 2 cents.
DC does cost alot. But it also brings in alot, quotes from K Payne several years ago indicate they don't lose much money at all.
i think you mean Patrick Ewing.... didnt he say at the last NBA labor meetings that the NBA players "make a lot, but we spend a lot too"... i couldve sworn he said something brilliant like that.
Re: Whatever you do...No MLS! What makes you think that MLS hasn't "invited" Frank DuRoss and friends to join MLS by 1) writing an expansion fee check, 2) transferring player contracts to MLS, LLC, 3) demonstrating the financial backing and wherewithall to sustain an MLS team. I'm guessing the offer has been on the table for any number of years. Surely you're not asking MLS to "invite" Rochester to play in MLS as a seperate entity?
Re: Whatever you do...No MLS! What's so scary about inviting Rochester (or any USL team) to play in MLS "as a separate entity" for one season? Toronto FC will exist in another country and play in the league permanently, why would a USL team playing in MLS be so radical? USL wants soccer to grow in the U.S. as much as MLS does - would a "joint venture" really be so difficult to comprehend? If said "joint venture" doesn't work out, everyone goes back to where they came from.
Re: Whatever you do...No MLS! I honestly don't know where to begin to reply to this. So I won't. Enjoy.
Re: Whatever you do...No MLS! A USL team will go bankrupt halfway thru the season playing in the MLS. The schedule in USL let you play back to back games so you do not have to spent a lot of money traveling. Plus they will have to play to leagues at the same time. Do you pretend that the USL will give a bye year to their reining champions so they can go play in anothe league. Do you think MLS will go for it a rixk embarassment form a minor team that most like it will be a bottom dweller anyways. That is why we have the US open anyway
The Rhinos are having a hard enough time staying afloat in the USL. They won't bankrupt the team in an attempt to go to MLS.
To compete in one US Open Cup game is one thing. But for you to put up a consistant challenge all season long is another thing. Rochester would have to put in a lot more money than they currently do, just to be competitive. And the even more difficult problem is how they would integrate with the league. Far too many problems for it to appear feasible to either party.