North American Pro Soccer 2017

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, ~Bear said:

The two next teams will go to Cincinnati and Sacramento. San Diego will get a team in the next four, but not at the expense of Cincy or Sac-town. 

 

None of those is ready with a stadium deal.  That's still a prerequisite, and that alone will determine who gets a club and in what order. 

[Nyk33]

24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I'm expecting an eventual 40. Split in two, east and west, with limited inter-conference play. 

 

With heavy emphasis on divisions like in the NFL. 

[dfwabel]

35 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

None of those is ready with a stadium deal.  That's still a prerequisite, and that alone will determine who gets a club and in what order. 

Exactly, FC Cincinnati is hell bent on using Nippert Stadium. 
 

The team is paying to widen the field to 115x75, but if the teams leaves at any time in the next 15 years, they must reconfigure Nippert at their own cost.

 

The expansion is all about revenue streams and the university having stakes in concessions (big one), parking (bigger one), stadium management.

 

But in FC Cincinnati's favor is really wealthy owners and connections to top corporate sponsors (Kroger, P&G, 5/3 Bank, Macy's*, Western & Southern, Cintas, Ashland, American Financial).

*-If Macy's is still in business in a decade.

[Gothamite]

Nippert will not be good enough.  MLS has been pretty clear - teams need to control their own stadiums, not rent.  So you can share with an NFL club, but only if the same person owns both teams.  

 

I'll have to check, but the last time I can remember MLS putting an expansion franchise into a shared stadium the new team doesn't control is the Chicago Fire.  In the league's third season.  

 

So yeah, all those other things you mention are nice, but the club will have to leverage them for a SSS if they really want to join MLS. 

[Sodboy13]

Speaking of the Fire, for the second straight year, they've sold their high first-round draft pick for allocation money they won't use on anything in particular. The future is... why.

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Nippert will not be good enough.  MLS has been pretty clear - teams need to control their own stadiums, not rent.  So you can share with an NFL club, but only if the same person owns both teams. 

I'll have to check, but the last time I can remember MLS putting an expansion franchise into a shared stadium the new team doesn't control is the Chicago Fire.  In the league's third season. 

So yeah, all those other things you mention are nice, but the club will have to leverage them for a SSS if they really want to join MLS. 

Unless the date has changed, January 31 is the deadline for the applications.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/12/15/mls-announces-expansion-process-and-timeline

 

Quote

Qualified applicants will submit documentation that focuses on the following three areas: 1) Ownership – Structure and financial informations; 2) Stadium – details on proposed site, financing, approvals and support; and 3) Financial Projections, Corporate Support and Soccer Support – a business plan, projections and commitment letters for naming rights and a jersey-front sponsor, along with an overview of support from the soccer community.

Three key aspects are considered top priorities when reviewing candidates:

    A committed local ownership group that has a passion for the sport, a deep belief in Major League Soccer and the resources to invest in the infrastructure to build the sport in their respective market.
    A market that has a history of strong fan support for soccer matches and other sporting events, is located in a desirable geographic location and is attractive to corporate sponsors and television partners.
    A comprehensive stadium plan that ensures the club will have a proper home for their fans and players while also serving as a destination for the sport in the community.

Major League Soccer’s expansion committee consists of ownership representatives from five clubs including Jonathan Kraft (New England Revolution), Andrew Hauptman (Chicago Fire), Anthony Precourt (Columbus Crew SC), Phil Rawlins (Orlando City SC) and Jay Sugarman (Philadelphia Union).

 

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Unless the date has changed, January 31 is the deadline for the applications.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/12/15/mls-announces-expansion-process-and-timeline

 

Yes, it is.  We'll see if any of these cities have solved their stadium problems by then. 

[MJWalker45]

San Antonio's biggest problem will be crowd ingress/egress. There's no space in the immediate area (1-2 mile radius) that is readily available for large scale parking. The high school stadium has about 900-1000 spaces and the soccer complex and stadium have another 500 or so. They may have to come to an agreement with VIA to set up a larger bus stop station. Bussing people in from AT&T Center is a 10 minute drive away with smooth traffic but about 7 miles away from the stadium. I'd have to look at a map but I believe the area to the west of the stadium is the most likely place for extra parking that could be used. 

[bosrs1]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:42 PM, Gothamite said:

 

None of those is ready with a stadium deal.  That's still a prerequisite, and that alone will determine who gets a club and in what order. 

 

Actually Sac is stadium ready. They just need the MLS go ahead and the stadium becomes reality.

[Gothamite]

I gratefully stand corrected.  I thought that they were one parcel away, like Miami.  

 

So Sacramento has the leg up.  Really ought to be next.   But Cincinnati isn't in that conversation until they can put forward their stadium plan.  

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

I gratefully stand corrected.  I thought that they were one parcel away, like Miami.  

 

So Sacramento has the leg up.  Really ought to be next.   But Cincinnati isn't in that conversation until they can put forward their stadium plan.  

 

Yeah on paper Sac should absolutely be next. Solid size market, well developed fan base already, Bay Area spill over population that is growing, stadium plan is ready, solid ownership group, ready made NorCal rivalry with San Jose.

 

I think the one thing holding Sacramento back, is they're Sacramento. No offense to my state's capital, but they're essentially Columbus west. Not exactly a sexy market for MLS nor do they expand the league's footprint into new territories as some of the others do, nor are they necessarily the largest market out there of the 10 options. I think for MLS they have to sit down and consider what is more important, a solid team who will be an immediate competitor and contributor to the league or someone who might some day be a major contributor but comes with clear risks. If they stay true to form Sac shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[FiddySicks]

Sacramento is ready with the land, and the roads system was just completed in that area as well (It was previously an old train yard with minimal to no infrastructure), and they're even ready when it comes to approval from the city. But that expansion fee has thrown a bit of a wrench in their plans from what I'm hearing. It's not an insurmountable obstacle by any means (and it isn't really THAT much higher than previously expected), but it's still a good chunk of change more than they had budgeted for. There's also a fear that the league may decide to look MUCH more closely at San Diego and Las Vegas with the recent NFL shifts, and if the SRFC group doesn't get in on this round, it may never happen due to cost. 

 

19 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

I think the one thing holding Sacramento back, is they're Sacramento. No offense to my state's capital, but they're essentially Columbus west. Not exactly a sexy market for MLS nor do they expand the league's footprint into new territories as some of the others do, nor are they necessarily the largest market out there of the 10 options. I think for MLS they have to sit down and consider what is more important, a solid team who will be an immediate competitor and contributor to the league or someone who might some day be a major contributor but comes with clear risks. If they stay true to form Sac shouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

I REALLY want to take offense to this because Sacramento is my home (And as I've stated here many times before, a damn underrated one at that), but I really can't fault that perception. It's not an uncommon viewpoint at all.  But I genuinely think that it serves an untapped portion of the market that many people just don't see. Sacramento is trending upward more than just about anywhere in the state right now and it's transformed over even just the last decade to quite a desirable spot. The Bay Area has basically maxed itself out in terms of cost, and Sacramento is picking up a huge portion of the migration (Seattle was the hot spot for awhile, but it overinflated itself nearly overnight and is seemingly already ready to burst). 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course none of this is new, though. I've been pushing for just about all things sports to Sacramento since the first week I signed up here 

[Gothamite]

I can totally see all of that.  I hope Sacramento can get in before the fee becomes prohibitive.

[Wings]

Sac is also the 20th largest market in terms of television media. I'm rooting hard for them to get a club and San Diego as well. 5 clubs in California seems much but then again you're approaching 40 million in population. 

[bosrs1]

38 minutes ago, Wings said:

Sac is also the 20th largest market in terms of television media. I'm rooting hard for them to get a club and San Diego as well. 5 clubs in California seems much but then again you're approaching 40 million in population. 

 

Hey it's not to many for MLB. I don't think it's too many for MLS. Particularly given the soccer footprint this state has and the overall population. And being that the SD and Sac teams would be taking advantage of markets that don't have much Big 4 competition (and even the jilted fan angle in SD), it makes even more sense.

[Wings]

14 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Hey it's not to many for MLB. I don't think it's too many for MLS. Particularly given the soccer footprint this state has and the overall population. And being that the SD and Sac teams would be taking advantage of markets that don't have much Big 4 competition (and even the jilted fan angle in SD), it makes even more sense.

Plus you could have a 5 team California division once the league gets to 30 eventually and splits into 3 divisions per conference. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Seattle about to bust? No no no no. We can't pull our collective head our asses when it comes to a new sports arena, but this is still the fastest growing city in the US and you can't walk three blocks without seeing cranes or some kind of new construction.

 

As someone unwilling to spend 700k on a 2 bedroom townhouse, I'd love for the real estate market to burst. But the tech sector, coupled with rampant Chinese/Russian investment in the area means this city isn't close to busting. No way.

 

I wish the best for Sacramento but I think it needs more going for it that government and not-Bay Area. Though considering that housing market, maybe that's enough.

[Nyk33]

The Red Bulls just traded their captain, Dax McCarty, to the Fire for $400,000 in allocation money.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Chicago is weird. Weren't they supposed to make some big acquisition this offseason? And by big I mean not Dax McCarty?

[FiddySicks]

4 hours ago, DG_Now said:

Seattle about to bust? No no no no. We can't pull our collective head our asses when it comes to a new sports arena, but this is still the fastest growing city in the US and you can't walk three blocks without seeing cranes or some kind of new construction.

 

As someone unwilling to spend 700k on a 2 bedroom townhouse, I'd love for the real estate market to burst. But the tech sector, coupled with rampant Chinese/Russian investment in the area means this city isn't close to busting. No way.

 

I wish the best for Sacramento but I think it needs more going for it that government and not-Bay Area. Though considering that housing market, maybe that's enough.

 

I think I may have overstated that a bit, as Seattle is still an EXTREMELY attractive market. I just mean that there was a stretch there around 2014/2015 where outsiders kinda "discovered" what all Seattle had to offer (jobs, affordable housing in comparison to other tech centers, a whole lotta fun). I lived there in the summer of 2014 and was planning on moving back the minute ASU handed me my diploma because I absolutely loved it and it was bafflingly affordable (at least compared to California). Problem is, prices there basically did what they did in the Bay Area and kinda took off overnight and the veil was kinda ripped off of what was "The best kept secret in the country". Still incredibly attractive, but you're not gonna get quite as much bang for your buck as you did even a few years ago. At least, that's what I've experienced.