Gothamite

North American Pro Soccer 2017

Recommended Posts

So this reportedly occurred:

http://www.dispatch.com/business/20171128/schottenstein-scraps-arena-district-project-discloses-talks-with-crew-about-site

 

"Schottenstein said it offered to give the land to the Crew for a new soccer stadium, but the plan “was not pursued by the Crew due to the inability for a stadium to fit on the site and/or probably because of the issues stated above.”

The Crew, however, released a Nov. 7 text exchange between Andy Loughnane, president of business operations for the Crew, and Schottenstein Real Estate Group President Brian Schottenstein that suggested the soccer team was, in fact, interested in the site."

 

With multiple people saying they considered this an appropriate site for the Crew as far as 10 years ago, why is this only now being brought to light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati got their sh** together and passed a vote to fund 37 million of the infrastructure costs for the stadium in the Oakley neighborhood. This is a 3 horse race for 2 spots and I like Cincinnati's chances over Nashville. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really think Sacramento has locked down their spot, and this does tend to favor Cincy over the other two for the second spot.

 

That's going to be a serious competition next year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Really think Sacramento has locked down their spot, and this does tend to favor Cincy over the other two for the second spot.

 

That's going to be a serious competition next year.  

We know it is down to four: Cincinnati, Detroit, Nashville, and Sacramento

 

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/11/29/four-finalist-cities-named-next-two-mls-expansion-teams

 

Quote
2017-Expansion-Map-DL-1280x553.jpg

Four cities will be competing for the next two MLS expansion slots that are scheduled to be announced before the end of the year.

MLS announced on Wednesday that the following four expansion bids (listed in alphabetical order) will make formal presentations to MLS Commissioner Don Garber and the league's Expansion Committee on Dec. 6 in New York:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

We know it is down to four: Cincinnati, Detroit, Nashville, and Sacramento

 

It’s down to four finalists for the two 2017 spots. There are two more that will be awarded in 2018, and those are still wide open.

 

Not only will there be two teams on the outside looking in after next month, but bidders like Tampa Bay and San Diego will have an extra year to strengthen their bids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

It’s down to four finalists for the two 2017 spots. There are two more that will be awarded in 2018, and those are still wide open.

 

Not only will there be two teams on the outside looking in after next month, but bidders like Tampa Bay and San Diego will have an extra year to strengthen their bids. 

 

Are we still assuming Miami will happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

It’s down to four finalists for the two 2017 spots. There are two more that will be awarded in 2018, and those are still wide open.

 

Not only will there be two teams on the outside looking in after next month, but bidders like Tampa Bay and San Diego will have an extra year to strengthen their bids. 

Just as SDSU revealed their detailed Mission Valley plan this afternoon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Are we still assuming Miami will happen?

 

Yes.  Beckham might need to give up some control to get extra financing, but it’ll happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

 

And Donovan & Co. have a year to try and best them for the site.  Or pick another. 

 

A year is a long time.  Who knows?  Maybe St. Louis can even convince their petulant billionaire to open his damn wallet and come back to the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be honest. While I love the passion that FC Cincinnati has ignited amongst soccer fans in its market, the manner in which they've gone about getting their stadium plan passed rubs me the wrong way. While the stadium plan that was passed this week may check all the boxes as far as Major League Soccer officials are concerned, it raises as many questions as it answers. To put it kindly, what occurred this week in the Cincinnati mayor's office and within city council chambers was the result of a last-minute rush-job on the part of FCC management... and it strikes me as an abrogation of duty on the part of many of the elected officials.

Where to begin... 

FC Cincinnati's President and GM Jeff Berding says, 
“We are taking Oakley up to the MLS. This gives us a chance to get the MLS bid. We are not advancing the West End to the MLS.” However, Cincinnati Vice Mayor David Mann said today, "... there is time to make a run at the West End" as the site for the stadium. On Monday of this week, councilors Winburn, Flynn, and Smitherman all alluded to the fact that the stadium could end up in another Cincinnati neighborhood. Additionally, neither the city or county commitments that were voted on today require the stadium to be built in Oakley, with both leaving open the possibility of the stadium being sited elsewhere. So what's it going to be? Oakley, the West End, or some other neighborhood? It doesn't seem as though city government and team management are on the same page with regard to stadium siting. That's a concern, given the fact that no two building sites are exactly the same, therefore the cost of publicly-financed infrastructure to support the proposed stadium is going to differ depending upon which neighborhood its built in.
 
Speaking of which, the team has told the city and county that it would need between $70 million and $75 million in publicly-financed infrastructure surrounding the stadium. Today, the city approved a $35 million deal and the county voted to approve $15 million. From where I'm sitting, that adds up to what could be a funding gap of between $20 million and $25 million. Where would that money come from? And Mayor Cranley told members of the city council that he views the city's $35 million offer as a "cap" on spending. While its nice that Mayor Cranley "VIEWS" the city's contribution as a "cap", is he willing to GUARANTEE tax-payers that the city's infrastructure contribution is capped?

Of course, we're getting ahead of ourselves with regard to what the costs of publicly-financed infrastructure improvements will be, as no traffic study - either in Oakley, or elsewhere - has yet been conducted to determine just what level of transportation-related infrastructure improvements will be needed to serve the stadium. As a result, its impossible to say whether the team's estimate of $70 million to $75 million in publicly-financed infrastructure improvements would even be enough.

 

It strikes me that FC Cincinnati ownership/management, in order to stay in the running for either the 25th or 26th MLS franchise, is hell-bent on putting a stadium plan - ANY stadium plan - in the hands of MLS leadership. Whether the particulars of that stadium plan, as presented to the City of Cincinnati or Hamilton County governments this week, remain the same in the future is of little or no concern to FCC ownership/management. They're banking on the fact that if they can get MLS leadership to grant them an expansion team, with said franchise a "bird-in-hand" they'll be able to strong-arm City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County politicos into giving them whatever they want - switching the site of the stadium, increased public funding for infrastructure work, etc. -  after the fact. 


Major League Soccer set their deadline for the review of expansion bids. That deadline is fast approaching. FC Cincinnati leadership has been under the gun to have a stadium deal in place by the time that deadline arrives. However, FC Cincinnati has known what Major League Soccer's deadline would be for quite some time. Therefore, it was incumbent upon them to bring a solid, realistic stadium proposal to city and county political leadership well in advance of when they actually did. The cynic in me says that FC Cincinnati leadership purposely dawdled in offering-up a proposal. Why? So that instead of allowing elected officials - and the city and county residents who voted for them - the time to adequately analyze the details of a proposed public-private partnership to get a soccer-specific stadium built in Cincinnati, they could bank on the Lindner family's philanthropic reputation and the sense of urgency surrounding the swiftly-approaching deadline to get a hole-filled proposal rammed through the city council. 

 

As they say, "the devil is in the details". From where I'm sitting, there are plenty of details that are left in flux in the FC Cincinnati stadium proposal that was approved by both the city and county today. By comparison, the details of the stadium plans in Sacramento and Nashville both seem to be locked-down.

Bottom line? I don't doubt that the Sacramento and Cincinnati expansion bids may be approved as Major League Soccer's 25th and 26th teams. However, if that's what transpires, I believe it will represent a case of Cincinnati's crowds and fan engagement at the USL level trumping a more detailed and locked-down stadium plan on the part of Nashville.

(Don't even get me started on the Detroit bid's decision to jettison development of a soccer-specific stadium and, instead, set-up shop at Ford Field. Frankly, I think Tom Gores and Dan Gilbert used MLS to get their hands on a prime piece of downtown Detroit real estate on which they never actually intended to build a stadium.)                     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the halftime, Alexi Lalas handicapped the options as Cincinnati/Nashville in front, followed by Sacramento and Detroit; Detroit specifically handicapped by lack of an SSS.

 

That's where I rank them too. Building out the center of the country seems smart, especially since we're pretty well stocked on the coasts. This map is outdated, but it does help contextualize where franchises currently are, and why another California team doesn't seem essential (plus LAFC coming on next year -- with Robert Lewandowski :) ).

 

MLS_Team_States_Map1.jpg

 

 

Also, nice goal Jozy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 3:04 PM, Gothamite said:

They value regional rivalries perhaps more than any other pro league in the country.

 

NHL blew it again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 9:13 AM, RichO said:

 

That is a tremendous location for a stadium. Walkable from CTA and Metra, near the expressway. It would immediately be second to Sox Park for accessibility if they have any kind of tolerable parking situation, and vastly superior to the spot than the Fire are stuck in.

 

Yeah, it's a good site, but I'd rather they try to lure the Fire back into the city. No one cares about the USL, it would never be worth the price of the real estate. Also, Chicago makes the most possible sense for the Amazon headquarters, so obviously it'll just go to f-cking Charlotte instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacramento shouldn't be denied a team just because there are already a number of teams on the west coast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

I have to be honest. While I love the passion that FC Cincinnati has ignited amongst soccer fans in its market, the manner in which they've gone about getting their stadium plan passed rubs me the wrong way. While the stadium plan that was passed this week may check all the boxes as far as Major League Soccer officials are concerned, it raises as many questions as it answers. To put it kindly, what occurred this week in the Cincinnati mayor's office and within city council chambers was the result of a last-minute rush-job on the part of FCC management... and it strikes me as an abrogation of duty on the part of many of the elected officials.

Where to begin... 

FC Cincinnati's President and GM Jeff Berding says, 
“We are taking Oakley up to the MLS. This gives us a chance to get the MLS bid. We are not advancing the West End to the MLS.” However, Cincinnati Vice Mayor David Mann said today, "... there is time to make a run at the West End" as the site for the stadium. On Monday of this week, councilors Winburn, Flynn, and Smitherman all alluded to the fact that the stadium could end up in another Cincinnati neighborhood. Additionally, neither the city or county commitments that were voted on today require the stadium to be built in Oakley, with both leaving open the possibility of the stadium being sited elsewhere. So what's it going to be? Oakley, the West End, or some other neighborhood? It doesn't seem as though city government and team management are on the same page with regard to stadium siting. That's a concern, given the fact that no two building sites are exactly the same, therefore the cost of publicly-financed infrastructure to support the proposed stadium is going to differ depending upon which neighborhood its built in.
 
Speaking of which, the team has told the city and county that it would need between $70 million and $75 million in publicly-financed infrastructure surrounding the stadium. Today, the city approved a $35 million deal and the county voted to approve $15 million. From where I'm sitting, that adds up to what could be a funding gap of between $20 million and $25 million. Where would that money come from? And Mayor Cranley told members of the city council that he views the city's $35 million offer as a "cap" on spending. While its nice that Mayor Cranley "VIEWS" the city's contribution as a "cap", is he willing to GUARANTEE tax-payers that the city's infrastructure contribution is capped?

Of course, we're getting ahead of ourselves with regard to what the costs of publicly-financed infrastructure improvements will be, as no traffic study - either in Oakley, or elsewhere - has yet been conducted to determine just what level of transportation-related infrastructure improvements will be needed to serve the stadium. As a result, its impossible to say whether the team's estimate of $70 million to $75 million in publicly-financed infrastructure improvements would even be enough.

 

It strikes me that FC Cincinnati ownership/management, in order to stay in the running for either the 25th or 26th MLS franchise, is hell-bent on putting a stadium plan - ANY stadium plan - in the hands of MLS leadership. Whether the particulars of that stadium plan, as presented to the City of Cincinnati or Hamilton County governments this week, remain the same in the future is of little or no concern to FCC ownership/management. They're banking on the fact that if they can get MLS leadership to grant them an expansion team, with said franchise a "bird-in-hand" they'll be able to strong-arm City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County politicos into giving them whatever they want - switching the site of the stadium, increased public funding for infrastructure work, etc. -  after the fact. 


Major League Soccer set their deadline for the review of expansion bids. That deadline is fast approaching. FC Cincinnati leadership has been under the gun to have a stadium deal in place by the time that deadline arrives. However, FC Cincinnati has known what Major League Soccer's deadline would be for quite some time. Therefore, it was incumbent upon them to bring a solid, realistic stadium proposal to city and county political leadership well in advance of when they actually did. The cynic in me says that FC Cincinnati leadership purposely dawdled in offering-up a proposal. Why? So that instead of allowing elected officials - and the city and county residents who voted for them - the time to adequately analyze the details of a proposed public-private partnership to get a soccer-specific stadium built in Cincinnati, they could bank on the Lindner family's philanthropic reputation and the sense of urgency surrounding the swiftly-approaching deadline to get a hole-filled proposal rammed through the city council. 

 

As they say, "the devil is in the details". From where I'm sitting, there are plenty of details that are left in flux in the FC Cincinnati stadium proposal that was approved by both the city and county today. By comparison, the details of the stadium plans in Sacramento and Nashville both seem to be locked-down.
 

 

All of your concerns are either unfounded, already handled, or will be covered by the agreement in place where FC Cincinnati pays for any cost overruns. The West End space would most certainly cost more than Oakley so if that's where they decide to put the stadium the club will do so knowing they'll have to cover the additional costs. I see no downside to have two options for a stadium site should they get the bid. 

 

Seems like you're hung up on that 25 million difference between the money the city committed and the original 75 million infrastructure cost and worried who'd foot that bill. It's not going to be Cincinnati taxpayers. Keep in mind the team landed a lucrative jersey sponsor contingent on MLS participation and still have yet to sell naming rights. You think they settled for less than the original cost because "ehhh close enough"? Further I find your contention with that amount of money maybe having to be covered by local taxpayers silly when you seem good with the fully publicly funded option in Nashville simply because it's "locked down". The privately financed stadium will be figured out (it basically is already), Nashville's "locked-down" option is going to milk taxpayers. I thought we all agreed that practice was bad. 

 

 

Quote


Bottom line? I don't doubt that the Sacramento and Cincinnati expansion bids may be approved as Major League Soccer's 25th and 26th teams. However, if that's what transpires, I believe it will represent a case of Cincinnati's crowds and fan engagement at the USL level trumping a more detailed and locked-down stadium plan on the part of Nashville.
 

How is this bad? It's a gate driven league, shouldn't crowds and fan engagement trump the unknown? With all things being equal, which they are now that Cincinnati has stadium financing I'd go with the proven fanbase over the city that hasn't played yet. FCC management has been operating the team as if it's an MLS club for 2 years now. They could play in MLS next season if you needed them to. 

 

Quote


(Don't even get me started on the Detroit bid's decision to jettison development of a soccer-specific stadium and, instead, set-up shop at Ford Field. Frankly, I think Tom Gores and Dan Gilbert used MLS to get their hands on a prime piece of downtown Detroit real estate on which they never actually intended to build a stadium.)                     

Seems like MLS really wants Detroit. I think they included them in the final four to give them one of the first spots in line, first rights of refusal, if you will, in the next round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wings said:

Sacramento shouldn't be denied a team just because there are already a number of teams on the west coast. 

 

Yeah, that's like saying Philadelphia shouldn't have been given an expansion slot because Boston/DC/NY.  It shows a profound lack of geographical awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, DG_Now said:

At the halftime, Alexi Lalas handicapped the options as Cincinnati/Nashville in front, followed by Sacramento and Detroit; Detroit specifically handicapped by lack of an SSS.

 

That's where I rank them too. Building out the center of the country seems smart, especially since we're pretty well stocked on the coasts. This map is outdated, but it does help contextualize where franchises currently are, and why another California team doesn't seem essential (plus LAFC coming on next year -- with Robert Lewandowski :) ).

 

MLS_Team_States_Map1.jpg

 

How old is that map?  2014?  2015?

 

And if geographic spread is really the most important thing, we should be looking forward to Montana United FC very soon. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yeah, that's like saying Philadelphia shouldn't have been given an expansion slot because Boston/DC/NY.  It shows a profound lack of geographical awareness.

 

Preach. 

 

Colombus is closer to Cincy than Sacramento is to San Jose for crying out loud. If you want to use the SoCal teams (which might as well be on another planet in this scenario), Cincy is closer to Chicago than either San Jose or Sacramento are to Carson. Sacramento is also bigger than Cincy. 

 

This "California has enough teams already" talk is such nonsense. This area is kinda terribly underserved. If the MLS goes with Cincy and Nashville this round over Sacramento because they want to "Grow the game" (which is garbage) they're going to kill a LOT of the goodwill they have in this market. They've been so far ahead of everyone else for so long now that it would be almost insulting if they passed us up for either Cincy or Detroit, both of which have been kinda rushed. As someone in our circles said, if Sacramento doesn't get a team this round with all of the work they've done to make this happen, people may riot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

They've been so far ahead of everyone else for so long now that it would be almost insulting if they passed us up for either Cincy or Detroit, both of which have been kinda rushed. 

 

Can't disagree with that.

 

Nobody has done more to build for MLS than Sacramento has, and for longer.  Every other bid has at least one question mark, and some have several.  There is no legitimate reason why the Republic shouldn't be the gimme in this round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now