So I've read a lot of threads about expansion and I am looking forward to MLS growth, but I've got to know. What is more important to MLS, SSS or new owner/investors. For example, let's say that NFL owner X, who has more money that God, calles up MLS and Garber and says "I've been talking to Hunt and Kraft and I want in on MLS. I loved the World Cup and want to run a team. Here's a check for 25 million for an entry fee and heres my share of the money needed for the next 10 years of the league. So Don, when is the expansion draft? Oh by the way, I want the team to play in my NFL stadium, but it meets FIFA regs." So, what does MLS do? Take the cash and the new investor or say no you have to build a new stadium and have the possible new owner take a walk?
Without a good stadium, the investor doesn't do much for the league, IMO. I mean, the MetroStars have Phil Anschutz as an investor/operator, but they'll continue to hemorrhage money until they get a stadium of their own. DC United won't ever make a profit in RFK. It's much harder to imagine a situation in which a vacant SSS existed without an investor to go along with it. I suppose, the closest that comes to mind would have ben had McKinney built a stadium for the Burn. Of course we know that Lamar Hunt was ready to buy the Burn as soon as that happened (funny how we've forgotten about the "imminent" sale of the Burn). And I suppose one could argue that a decent SSS is sitting abandoned in Ft. Lauderdale right now. But there are probably legitmate questions as to local support in that market, or whether or not Ft. Lauderdale is the right locale for a SSS. So I'd have to say that the harder nut to crack is the stadium by far. Besides, if said investor had more money than God, getting a SSS built wouldn't be much trouble.
Yes, but if it's HIS NFL-style stadium and/or he has some kind of long-term lease arrangement where he can sub-lease to tenants of his own choosing, he would thereby be able to get (obviously) a lease for his MLS team under far more favorable terms than, say, DC or the MetroStars, a la Hunt in KC. (And yes, I know htere's an argument where Hunt is having MLS pay him money for the lease but let's suppose the situation is even more ideal than that one.) So an owner, without an SSS but with access in one way or another to a CHEAP NFL-style stadium might be a quite beneficial and even profitable arrangement to MLS. Not that I want to see another team in a 70,000 stadium, but it could happen and workout for the league.
The ownership situation is really precarious. We could definitely use another owner. On the other hand, SSSs pretty much guarantee the viability of the league.
I'm not so sure. I wonder if MLS shouldn't shop around for cities willing to help build a stadium even if there is no current team or prospective owner.
well that is a though question... i thionk that SSS is better... because they will last longer than owners... think this... if MLS folds in 2 years (I'm saying this as an example.. please don't kill me), and another soccer league is created in 2008 i think that columbus and LA can have assured spots because of their stadiums.....
No owner, no stadium; simple as that. If the city builds the stadium, the team still has to pay rent, and percentages of the parking and concessions. There's no such thing as a free ride, and MLS is nowhere near the stage where a city will roll over and play dead to get a team. A city-built stadium would only be soccer-friendly, not soccer-specific. The stadium mandate has more potential of stiflling expansion that the economy does. Unlike St. Pete (what is now Tropicana Field was built in 1983, and lay mostly dormant until the TB Lightning started plaing there, and by the time the D-Rays got there, the place was practically obsolete), most cities won't lay out the cash to build a stadium when there's no forseeable prospect of getting a team. Get an owner first, play in a place that's workable, to see if the market is really there, and then build the stadium. No need for anyone to build a stadium that will be empty in a few years, after nobody shows up and the team tanks. Let the market prove itself first, and then build the stadium. Doing it the Columbus way (team > success > stadium) is the way to go. We've seen with Miami the danger in building a stadium (now empty) first, whether it be flagging attendance (not the case in Miami), or an owner who's a jerk. Most of the current markets have been proven, so it's time to look at stadia in those areas. A privately-built stadium not only makes the team more money (they get to keep it all, except the property taxes and expenditures), but is more favorable to the taxpayer, who won't get mad over using his money to build a stadium for "them sissies what play that there Communist kickball." As an owner, I'd want to see the team do well first, rather than have my team die, and end up with a white elephant on my hands, and have to scramble to get concerts, tractor pulls, and an occasional drum corps show (nothing wrong with drum corps shows, they're just few and far between, except in the summertime). No way would I build a stadium with my own money, and then either be snubbed by MLS, or not be supported when we did get a team, and end up with a ballpark I still have to pay for. And most local and state governments would feel the same way. For Atlanta (which most of you would just die if we ever got a team ), I'd either get the Georgia Dome to put in FieldTurf, work out a deal with Morris Brown for Herndon, or help the City of Atlanta pay (or pay for it myself) to widen the field and put in grass at Lakewood (already seats 20,000, and could be expanded with endzone seating; the area's no different that that at DMS, and it's closer in), before I'd commit the money to build a stadium for a team I may or may not get, and which may or may not do well (nobody really knows how well a pro soccer team will do (MLS or USL), even in an area where success should be a given). Without that leeway (team first, then stadium), I wouldn't even take a chance, as big a soccer fan as I am.
One correction; Lockhart wasn't built by Horowitz. It already existed as a high school stadium. Horowitz reportedly spent $5 million ungrading it to MLS standards.
i dunno... i would prefer to say no to the owner portion... but it's my firm belief that the fire will be making a profit when they go back to soldier field for the pure aesthetic part... i would say no... if the lease if favorable, they can make money... but is it really good for increasing the league's popularity to play in monsterous stadiums? even if they average 20k+ a match? i would say no, but others might differ an sss would show much more profitability... controlling revenue streams and would be a better lure to more i/o's then just one new i/o.... at least that is my opinion
Yes, you are correct, sir . Perhaps it wasn't the best of examples. Does anyone use Lockhart at the moment?
ok how about this, Owner X who owns the stadium will give the MLS team the same deal with rent, parking, food and other revenue streams that his NFL team gets. If we get this then the team will make a profit. I just cant see MLS turning down a new team and owner/investor in a major market because of no SSS. I know they want SSS, I know that it will matter 20 years from now, I know that a SSS will look better on tv, but they cant turn down the money, a new owner, and a profitable(sp?) team even if it they play in a 60,000 seat stadium.
Interestingly its been 10 years since the OP posted his original question so its probably a good time to see whats happened in those 10 years. I guess Seattle have provided the best example of owners coming into MLS without an SSS and being a huge success. Vancouver, likewise, have also done well without having a SSS. Both of them have really good ownership groups. Personally i think the owners are the key. Some MLS teams have SSS but owners that are non-existant or barely care and those franchises are falling behind. ( Granted they did build those stadiums in a different time when things didn't look so rosy) Even the most beautiful SSS in the country(and DP's) hasn't stopped RBNY from having issues. On the other hand Sporting Kansas City have done extremely well since their rebrand based on the new owners passion for the club, which led to a beautiful SSS being built.
I am not sure how many of the following are FIFA standard (or at least MLS field standard) But who would you turn down if he came up with a 50 million check? Buffalo Miami Baltimore Tampa Bay Cincinnati Cleveland Pittsburgh Jacksonville Nashville Oakland (been there it would be DCU all over again) San Diego (They may be looking to move right?) Minnesota (if retractable roof is built) Charlotte Arizona San Fransisco (2 bay area teams) Atlanta (if they build a open air stadium) How about a CFL team owner Edmonton Hamilton Winnipeg Calgary Regina There are all the open air stadiums (Indianapolis is a dome right?) so who would you turn down?