Gothamite

North American Pro Soccer 2017

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Preach. 

 

Colombis us 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. 

I think you guys have the strongest bid and this thing will be between Nashville and Cincinnati. That's why I'm rooting for Sacramento and Cincinnati. Both have gone through all the proper steps that MLS has asked of them and have pre-built fanbases with very good fan support of their current team. They check every box while the others don't. I don't see Detroit as a realistic bid right now so this is a 3 horse race. If you burn either Sacramento or Cincinnati this time then you're going to kill goodwill and momentum whereas Nashville doesn't yet have a fanbase to tick off. Let them prove their worth in USL like we both had to and then give them a bid in the next round of expansion. 

 

Reading Jeff Berding's comments it really does seem like he knows something already. I can't see the team investing this heavily if they weren't sure it would pay off later. That may just be my wishful thinking projecting onto him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I think you guys have the strongest bid and this thing will be between Nashville and Cincinnati. That's why I'm rooting for Sacramento and Cincinnati. Both have gone through all the proper steps that MLS has asked of them and have pre-built fanbases with very good fan support of their current team. They check every box while the others don't.

 

You're so almost there, but not quite.  Commit to a stadium plan first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.



Really? That's not what it sounded like in chambers during the hearing before the Cincinnati City Council's Budget and Finance Committee on Monday. There was quite a bit of hemming and hawing over details going on for a stadium funding deal that supposedly has everything "already handled".

* Councilmen Flynn, Mann, Smitherman, and Winburn all mentioned that FC Cincinnati's "already handled" Oakley stadium could yet end up in another neighborhood.

* Mayor Cranley reiterated his promise that he would be announcing thousands of new jobs coming to Cincinnati if the council committed to the public infrastructure plan surrounding the stadium. "I'm in discussions with a number of employers who would come to that site (Oakley) if the infrastructure is available," Cranley said. But, if the stadium doesn't end up in Oakley, is there any guarantee that the "thousands of jobs" that "a number of employers" have purportedly promised "would come to THAT SITE" would still materialize in another location? Do we know with certainty that another location would provide the space and access to transportation infrastructure necessary to support all of the thousands of jobs that Cranley promised would crop-up in Oakley? For starters, the former Cast-Fab site in Oakley is considered one of the best development locations in the city because of its access to the interstate. If FC Cincinnati's stadium should wind-up in another neighborhood, would ALL of the employers Cranley has said are interested in bringing jobs to the Oakley site be able - or interested in - setting-up shop at the new location? If not, how does the city pay for infrastructure improvements at both the new stadium site and the Oakley location? If the city can't swing the cost of infrastructure improvements in both locales, do the "thousands of jobs" Cranley promised at Oakley evaporate? The answers to such questions don't sound "already handled". 

* City Engineer Don Gindling conceded that there's no way of knowing exactly what the infrastructure costs will ultimately be at ANY possible site for an FC Cincinnati stadium until a traffic impact study is done. Said traffic impact study clearly isn't "already handled".      

]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.



And FC Cincinnati's commitment to "cover the additional costs" of developing a soccer-specific stadium in a neighborhood where the project would "cost more than Oakley" includes covering overruns in infrastructure costs as well as stadium construction costs? And that's in writing within the ordinances that were voted on this week? Because, if it isn't spelled-out in writing within said ordinances, and it doesn't commit FC Cincinnati to paying cost overruns for BOTH stadium construction AND infrastructure improvements in a neighborhood other than Oakley, that's another potential scenario that isn't "already handled" in the stadium deal that was voted on this week.

I see no downside to have two options for a stadium site should they get the bid.



Except that there are questions surrounding who would be responsible for coming up with a potential shortfall of $20 million to $25 million in infrastructure costs at the Oakley site, let alone who would be on the hook for possible infrastructure cost overruns alone at a site elsewhere in the city.  

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.



You say that it's "not going to be Cincinnati taxpayers" with such certainty. May I borrow your crystal ball to select my winning lottery numbers? ;)

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.



Don't get me wrong. I'm dead set against public subsidization of development projects that primarily benefit privately-held professional sports entities. If it were up to me, the maximum contribution that a state, county, or municipal government entity would make to sports development would be exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hammered-out with Robert Kraft on the Gillette Stadium project. Namely, public investment would be limited to the financing of infrastructure improvements surrounding the sports facility AND the private sports business benefitting from the public largesse would be legally required to reimburse the governmental entity every dime of public funding invested in the project, plus interest, through a revenue stream over-and-above any taxes that the sports business was already required to pay by existing state law. 

My biggest issue with FC Cincinnati ownership and management is that they dragged their feet on presenting a stadium plan containing any sort of financial details regarding what they expected from the public until extremely late in the process. FC Cincinnati leadership has known all along what the drop-dead date was going to be for having a detailed stadium plan in place to present to Major League Soccer officials. That they waited until AFTER the 2017 municipal election was held in Cincinnati to present their plan doesn't sit well with me. That move guaranteed that the details surrounding said plan - to be more accurate, what "details" actually exist - would not be a major focus of discussion in said election. As a result, three lame-duck city councilors - two of whom voted in favor of this week's ordinance - have dumped the responsibility for wrestling with the outcome of this deal into the laps of elected officials who never had a chance to vet the agreement's particulars. That strikes me as a major lack of transparency on FC Cincinnati's part.

Honestly, I believe that Cincinnati, Nashville and Sacramento would all be terrific additions to MLS. That said, there are significant question marks surrounding the FC Cincinnati stadium plan. Where will it actually end up being sited? How much money will the infrastructure improvements around the facility cost? Who is ultimately responsible for making-up any overruns in infrastructure costs beyond the $50 million that the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County have pledged? The uncertainty raised by those questions bother me, as does the rush-job to push the stadium plan through the city council and board of commissioners under a time-crunch that could have been avoided had FC Cincinnati simply been more forthcoming with a detailed plan earlier in the expansion process.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brian in Boston said:

 

Really? That's not what it sounded like in chambers during the hearing before the Cincinnati City Council's Budget and Finance Committee on Monday. There was quite a bit of hemming and hawing over details going on for a stadium funding deal that supposedly has everything "already handled".

* Councilmen Flynn, Mann, Smitherman, and Winburn all mentioned that FC Cincinnati's "already handled" Oakley stadium could yet end up in another neighborhood.


* Mayor Cranley reiterated his promise that he would be announcing thousands of new jobs coming to Cincinnati if the council committed to the public infrastructure plan surrounding the stadium. "I'm in discussions with a number of employers who would come to that site (Oakley) if the infrastructure is available," Cranley said. But, if the stadium doesn't end up in Oakley, is there any guarantee that the "thousands of jobs" that "a number of employers" have purportedly promised "would come to THAT SITE" would still materialize in another location? Do we know with certainty that another location would provide the space and access to transportation infrastructure necessary to support all of the thousands of jobs that Cranley promised would crop-up in Oakley? For starters, the former Cast-Fab site in Oakley is considered one of the best development locations in the city because of its access to the interstate. If FC Cincinnati's stadium should wind-up in another neighborhood, would ALL of the employers Cranley has said are interested in bringing jobs to the Oakley site be able - or interested in - setting-up shop at the new location? If not, how does the city pay for infrastructure improvements at both the new stadium site and the Oakley location? If the city can't swing the cost of infrastructure improvements in both locales, do the "thousands of jobs" Cranley promised at Oakley evaporate? The answers to such questions don't sound "already handled". 

* City Engineer Don Gindling conceded that there's no way of knowing exactly what the infrastructure costs will ultimately be at ANY possible site for an FC Cincinnati stadium until a traffic impact study is done. Said traffic impact study clearly isn't "already handled".      
 


Good points, but that's the pitch for the Oakley location to the HCC. I do believe that area would be slated for development with or without a soccer stadium. Nothing's happening in the West End, however, without that MLS bid. So present an option to the league and work out the strategy of where the best place to put this thing would be later. If MLS says "we'll give you the bid, but it has to be where you pitched us" then that will answer all your questions. It's a safety net. As for cost of infrastructure, we'll find that out too. If it's more 50 million dollars then I'm confident FC Cincinnati will be on the hook for that. 

 

Quote



And FC Cincinnati's commitment to "cover the additional costs" of developing a soccer-specific stadium in a neighborhood where the project would "cost more than Oakley" includes covering overruns in infrastructure costs as well as stadium construction costs?

 

That's what I read, yes. 

 

Quote

And that's in writing within the ordinances that were voted on this week?Because, if it isn't spelled-out in writing within said ordinances, and it doesn't commit FC Cincinnati to paying cost overruns for BOTH stadium construction AND infrastructure improvements in a neighborhood other than Oakley, that's another potential scenario that isn't "already handled" in the stadium deal that was voted on this week.


Except that there are questions surrounding who would be responsible for coming up with a potential shortfall of $20 million to $25 million in infrastructure costs at the Oakley site, let alone who would be on the hook for possible infrastructure cost overruns alone at a site elsewhere in the city.  
 

 

The 75 million figure was an estimate thrown out for negotiating purposes and they were psyched to get 25 million less. If they come to the city with a need for more the city's gonna tell them to find a way to pay for it (naming rights, jersey sponsor. Done). They originally came and asked for 100 million for stadium construction before ever mentioning the infrastructure costs and the city said no so they found 100 million more. If they get the bid and break ground and it costs more 50 million and the city agrees to fund more of it I won't be happy, but it won't bother me that much either because then we'll have a team.

 

Quote


You say that it's "not going to be Cincinnati taxpayers" with such certainty. May I borrow your crystal ball to select my winning lottery numbers? ;)
 

 

Cute. It's in the agreement that FCC would pay cost overruns more than they've already been granted. You keep rephrasing the same concern in different ways and you have a thing for underlining WORDS. They got 50 million this week, which says to me two things 1. If it costs more than that you're paying the rest yourself and 2. It won't cost 75 million. But let's pretend taxpayers are called upon to foot the bill - 25 million new tax dollars is far less than what Nashville residents have to pay for their stadium. As an outsider to both cities it feels odd that you'd side with the latter simply because more details have been ironed out when it's a far worse deal for the locals. 

 

Quote



Don't get me wrong. I'm dead set against public subsidization of development projects that primarily benefit privately-held professional sports entities. If it were up to me, the maximum contribution that a state, county, or municipal government entity would make to sports development would be exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hammered-out with Robert Kraft on the Gillette Stadium project. Namely, public investment would be limited to the financing of infrastructure improvements surrounding the sports facility AND the private sports business benefitting from the public largesse would be legally required to reimburse the governmental entity every dime of public funding invested in the project, plus interest, through a revenue stream over-and-above any taxes that the sports business was already required to pay by existing state law. 

 

My biggest issue with FC Cincinnati ownership and management is that they dragged their feet on presenting a stadium plan containing any sort of financial details regarding what they expected from the public until extremely late in the process. FC Cincinnati leadership has known all along what the drop-dead date was going to be for having a detailed stadium plan in place to present to Major League Soccer officials. That they waited until AFTER the 2017 municipal election was held in Cincinnati to present their plan doesn't sit well with me. That move guaranteed that the details surrounding said plan - to be more accurate, what "details" actually exist - would not be a major focus of discussion in said election. As a result, three lame-duck city councilors - two of whom voted in favor of this week's ordinance - have dumped the responsibility for wrestling with the outcome of this deal into the laps of elected officials who never had a chance to vet the agreement's particulars. That strikes me as a major lack of transparency on FC Cincinnati's part.

 

So between poor timing created by political gamesmanship and milking taxpayers for hundreds of millions for a private stadium, poor timing created by political gamesmanship is the greater sin here? I still think that's a really odd stance to take based on nothing more than the arithmetic of how these two plans are being funded. Is this plan perfect? No, but the financing is in place, my taxes aren't going to increase, a rich guy is going to pay for his own rich guy toy, and that's what I care about. If the ends (a mostly privately financed soccer stadium to win an MLS bid) justify the means (dillydallying to wrestle some politics) then who cares? I, a resident of the Oakley part of Cincinnati, do not. 

 

 

Quote


Honestly, I believe that Cincinnati, Nashville and Sacramento would all be terrific additions to MLS. That said, there are significant question marks surrounding the FC Cincinnati stadium plan. Where will it actually end up being sited? How much money will the infrastructure improvements around the facility cost? Who is ultimately responsible for making-up any overruns in infrastructure costs beyond the $50 million that the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County have pledged? The uncertainty raised by those questions bother me, as does the rush-job to push the stadium plan through the city council and board of commissioners under a time-crunch that could have been avoided had FC Cincinnati simply been more forthcoming with a detailed plan earlier in the expansion process.     

 

No offense, but this summary paragraph is all you needed to say instead of the term paper that came before or the one that came before that. I get your concerns, but I still fail to see how this plan is worse than the publicly funded, "locked-down" plan in Nashville. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, I still don't understand the case for Sacramento. Yes, the organization has its ducks in a row and I applaud that, but I just don't understand the value of the market. The NBA moved there when David Stern wanted to be the only fish in the pond. Why does the MLS want to be there too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The team has had solid turnout in a temporary stadium and a good record as well. Make sense to reward fan bases that make the game more enjoyable to watch on TV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners and management of the Rochester Rhinos have announced that the franchise will be taking a one-year hiatus from United Soccer League play in 2018. 

The team will remain in good standing with the USL throughout the 2018 season. In fact, Capelli Sport Stadium will play host to several neutral site, regular-season  USL matches over the course of the season. Additionally, the Junior Rhinos youth soccer program will continue to operate for the year.

The team's owners plan to continue to work with supporters, the business community, and local government leadership to build a foundation for sustained success in the market. 

Rochester Rhinos Announce Decisions For 2018 Season    

Share this post


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

Don't take it personally, man.  We're all just talking, and we're all friends here.

 

Nothing taken personally at all. I have similar concerns myself, but I'm not sure why we're embracing these publicly financed plans as failproof while poking holes in the one that is mostly privately funded. It's backwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think either Nashville or Cincy’s plan is all that solid, actually.  Neither holds a candle to what Sacramento has done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DG_Now said:

If that's the case, I still don't understand the case for Sacramento. Yes, the organization has its ducks in a row and I applaud that, but I just don't understand the value of the market. The NBA moved there when David Stern wanted to be the only fish in the pond. Why does the MLS want to be there too?

It's none of my business but you seem to have a dislike for Sacramento sports and Bay Area sports. I'm not attacking you it's just some of your posts have that sentiment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 3:54 PM, DG_Now said:

If that's the case, I still don't understand the case for Sacramento. Yes, the organization has its ducks in a row and I applaud that, but I just don't understand the value of the market. The NBA moved there when David Stern wanted to be the only fish in the pond. Why does the MLS want to be there too?

 

Larger TV market and population (by MSA) than Nashville or Cincinnati. Growing faster than Cincinnati or Detroit. Longer sustained period of USL success than any of the three. More underserved than any of the three. Sacramento's a bit of a sleeping giant because it's overshadowed by the Bay cities, but it's a big market with a lot of potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 12:54 PM, DG_Now said:

If that's the case, I still don't understand the case for Sacramento. Yes, the organization has its ducks in a row and I applaud that, but I just don't understand the value of the market. The NBA moved there when David Stern wanted to be the only fish in the pond. Why does the MLS want to be there too?

 

Then you're really not paying any attention. I feel like you've kind of already got your mind made up about this and no evidence to the contrary is going to sway you. I have my own biases, of course, as a team employee who's been working to get this off of the ground. But, there's a lot of evidence, that we've shown you several times, as to why it's a valuable market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Then you're really not paying any attention. I feel like you've kind of already got your mind made up about this and no evidence to the contrary is going to sway you.

 

Yeah, at this point I think the case has been made. 

 

I can understand fans in other communities wanting to play up their own chances, but it’s really hard to punch holes in the Sacramento bid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this little nugget on Our Sports Central Weekly Updates about the NASL. 

 

North American Soccer League: As the NASL waits for a decision next month on an appeal to obtain a preliminary injunction to restore its Division-II status, the NASL is down to five of eight teams from the 2017 season along with two previously announced 2018 expansion teams called California United FC (Orange County) and 1904 FC (San Diego). Apparently, six teams called the FC Arizona, Boston City FC, Boca Raton FC, Detroit City FC, Hartford City FC and Virginia Beach City FC from the lower-level National Premier Soccer League (NPSL) had signed letters of intent to join the NASL in 2018, if the league retained Division-II status. The NASL was also negotiating with a new suburban Atlanta team for 2018 and another NPSL team called the New Orleans Jesters had signed a letter of intent to join the NASL for the 2019 season.

 

I was wondering why the NASL was fighting so hard for something they couldn't even hold on to, seeing as their current champion won't even take the field to defend their title, and a few clubs have bolted or folded.

 

I think this what they were presenting to the court as to why they should have DII status. But I think it's too little, too late for the NASL, and you can't just pluck teams from the NPSL and move them to the NASL. There is a reason they are in the NPSL and not already apart of the NASL and I think the USSF would see it that way as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets worse - those six semi-pro teams agreed to come into the NASL only because the league agreed to waive most of its fees, and becase Rocco Commisso, Riccardo Silva and Robert Palmer each agreed to subsidize two of the clubs each.  

 

Yep, they're literally paying those teams to join the NASL.  Or trying to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats TFC. Clearly the better team for a second MLS Cup in a row, but this time a champion. I'm bummed as a Sounders fan, but I really like Jozy, Bradley and Giovinco. If my team had to lose, I'm glad it's to the greatest MLS team of all time.

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