North American Pro Soccer 2017

[Gothamite]

5 minutes ago, mr.negative15 said:

I would guess the same, that the affiliated clubs would "stay up" and the "2" teams would go to division 3. Seems to make the most sense. Of course you know what they say about assuming......

 

Indeed.   Early indications are that the 2 teams will stay in D2 and the USL will fill D3 with new clubs, either expansion or drawn from the semi-pro ranks. 

 

And really, from the performance aspect, there's no reason why the 2 teams shouldn't be in the USL.  They're good enough in some cases (if not many cases) and the reserve players on their rosters need to play against the best possible competition to develop.  They deserve to play against the best possible competition.

 

I really think fans will need to get over the whole 2 thing.  Do they have a problem with Bethlehem Steel in the second division?  If not, then why not?

[Jer15]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

And really, from the performance aspect, there's no reason why the 2 teams shouldn't be in the USL.  They're good enough in some cases (if not many cases) and the reserve players on their rosters need to play against the best possible competition to develop.  They deserve to play against the best possible competition.

 

I could not agree with that statement more. 

 

Especially with USL. They have been and will continue to be a development path for the MLS. 

Call it division 2, call it division 200 (being extreme to make a point)....I don't care. All I care about, as a TFC fan, is that the players on TFC 2 get to a- get playing time and b- they get to play against the best possible competition in order to develop. 

[AnPheitseog]

10 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Indeed.   Early indications are that the 2 teams will stay in D2 and the USL will fill D3 with new clubs, either expansion or drawn from the semi-pro ranks. 

 

And really, from the performance aspect, there's no reason why the 2 teams shouldn't be in the USL.  They're good enough in some cases (if not many cases) and the reserve players on their rosters need to play against the best possible competition to develop.  They deserve to play against the best possible competition.

 

I really think fans will need to get over the whole 2 thing.  Do they have a problem with Bethlehem Steel in the second division?  If not, then why not?

I feel like that, if american soccer is deadset on having no pro/reg(which is fine), and being like all the other North American sports, then go all the way.

 

Minor league teams in different cities, different(or not, depending) names and different or close identities.

[2001mark]

I'd like to see a Europa style relegation tournament for CONCACAF, to follow the refined CL.  

[Sykotyk]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

No.  Cincy will not get into MLS without a shovel-ready stadium plan.  Not their current college stadium, but one they control.  That's how MLS works now, it's central to their business model.  And too many other bids are shovel-ready or will be by the deadline.

 

Now, FC Cincinnati does have a plan.  They just haven't made it public.  And they have until the end of the year to tie up all loose ends, which I'm sure they're working on now.  But if they can't get it together and if they can't close the deal, they're not joining MLS this round.

 

Well, Atlanta and NYCFC have proven that not 100% true.

 

As for Cincinnati, there's extenuating circumstances that would make them playing at Nippert Stadium a viable, long-term plan.

 

First and foremost, is that the FC Cincinnati owner is a big benefactor to UC and has a school of business named after him due to one of his gifts. Nippert just underwent an $85m renovation and was further renovated to widen the field for the soccer team.

 

Their owner has considerable clout and leeway with Nippert that other stadiums would not give other owners. A 20-year lease detailing the long-term requirements would work when the team controls such things as luxury boxes, signage, concessions, etc.

 

I seriously doubt FC CIncinnati has any legitimate plan to play anywhere other than Nippert. Where in Cincinnati would be a 'good location'? There's no room on the waterfront. Anywhere else would be out in suburbia. Playing in the area of UC makes the most sense. Building a competing stadium for another stadium already right there is duplicitous and ridiculous.

 

If you spent even $100 million a 30-year usage would mean for roughly 20 home games a year (league, friendlies, USOC, playoffs), would be $167,000/game.  And that's a bare minimum stadium (worse than Crew/MAPFRE Stadium).

[Gothamite]

55 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Well, Atlanta and NYCFC have proven that not 100% true

 

You are 100% incorrect.   The owners of both Atlanta and NYCFC control their stadiums. Cincinnati doesn't. That's the difference. 

[Sykotyk]

18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

You are 100% incorrect.   The owners of both Atlanta and NYCFC control their stadiums. Cincinnati doesn't. That's the difference. 

You can't just move the goal posts. They may be owned by their current owner.

 

But that also creates a very tough situation if the owner of the NFL team no longer wants the MLS team, OR sells the MLS team or NFL team off and suddenly you have a team who is now just a tenant.

 

Would that happen? Maybe. NYCFC is a prime example as playing at Yankee Stadium is not and was not ever a long-term plan for them. If the Yankees find it unprofitable or detrimental to their primary business of the Yankees (lose one $20 million star to a divot in the outfight caused by a soccer game and you might even see the players demand it).

 

The only thing Cincinnati lacks is their name on the deed. In all intents, they control the stadium when it comes to FC Cincinnati. They already expanded the field to fit MLS' standard dimensions.

[dfwabel]

FC Cincinnati only pays the university $5K/game in rent plus the cost of ushers/ticket takers/univ. police. If they move up to MLS, both parties will renegotiate the terms.

 

The university gives the team some athletic dept. and physical plant staff for games at no cost. Concessions are split 50/50 once the costs of widening the field is paid off. 

The university keeps all parking revenues on university property.

 

http://csnbbs.com/thread-802521.html

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

You can't just move the goal posts. They may be owned by their current owner.

 

I'm not moving the goalposts at all.  It's been long established that cross-ownership of teams satisfies the stadium issue.   See also Seattle.  We don't have to like it, but it's been very consistent for a very long time. 

 

Quick question - do you know the last time MLS put a team in an existing stadium they didn't control, without a plan for one they would?  Chivas in 2004.  Before that?  Chicago, 1997.

 

Cinncinatti reportedly has a stadium proposal.  That's good, because they'll definitely need one.

[Corvus]

I wish the new Canadian league well, but I'm very skeptical of any long term commercial success. 

[Jer15]

7 hours ago, Corvus said:

I wish the new Canadian league well, but I'm very skeptical of any long term commercial success. 

Care to expand on that thought?

 

I'm not even necessarily arguing I'm just curious as to why you say this

[dfwabel]

SDSU walks away from talk with FS Investors concernIng a partnership on the Qualcomm site.

 

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/16/san-diego-state-university-will-not-seek-partnersh/

[MJWalker45]

That might kill that bid unless someone ups their stake in the team. 

[Gothamite]

33 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

That might kill that bid unless someone ups their stake in the team. 

 

I agree that this significantly hurts the bid, but what do you mean about stake in the team?

[MJWalker45]

Unless someone else wants to pick up the costs for the site that SDSU would've paid in, I think this is dead ion the water.

[Gothamite]

That I'm not worried about.  The developers have plenty of cash. My understanding is that they wanted the school involved because it would help with the public vote, not because the school brought anything substantive to the package. 

[dfwabel]

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Unless someone else wants to pick up the costs for the site that SDSU would've paid in, I think this is dead ion the water.

Part of the lure for SDSU is/was that even in negotiations with the city the school would get the land for much less than market value.  That's why the SDSU AD was touting that they could build a stadium for them for only $150M. 

[Gothamite]

But the Soccer City developers have been adamant that they'll pay an established market value for the land.  They didn't need SDSU aboard to drive down the price.

 

And can the University now convince the city (and the voters) to leave that money on the table so they can have the land?

[Brian in Boston]

In the wake of SDSU announcing that it was ending talks with FS Investors regarding the Soccer City development, Matt Awbrey - a spokesman for San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer - sent the following statement to The Associated Press:

"We have been very clear that the City cannot afford to keep Qualcomm Stadium open past 2018 and the Padres have clearly stated that the Aztecs can only play at Petco Park for one year after that. While we are still willing to engage with SDSU, this decision has unfortunately put the university in a situation where this process will move forward without their involvement."

 

Further, in Monday's San Diego Union-Tribune, columnist Kevin Acee wrote:

"Mayor Kevin Faulkner has secured multiple provisions from the group looking to develop the Qualcomm Stadium land and is ready to endorse the project. He would like to do so with the implicit approval of San Diego State, but he is also prepared to do so with his alma mater's implicit opposition."

Presuming that Mr. Awbrey would not be sharing his statement without Mayor Faulconer's approval and that Mr. Acee has sources with first-hand knowledge of the mayor's mindset regarding Soccer City, it would certainly seem that the mayor has made peace with the idea of FS Investors' proposed development moving forward without SDSU's involvement. Which, given the fact that Faulconer is an SDSU alumnus, could be seen as a rebuke of SDSU's negotiating style throughout the process to date. It will be interesting to see how other high-profile SDSU alumni - including those on the San Diego City Council - respond to what can be seen as Faulconer coming out in support of FS Investors.

[dfwabel]

SDSU is also going to face an executive leadership issue as the current president is leaving next month with the interim president expected to hold the job up to a full year as the CSU Board of Trustees aren't set for any new FT hire to start until summer 2018. The interim is a former SDSU VP and has CSU system familiarity, but she was just named on Monday and was retired from highed education for the last three years.