Jump to content

gosioux76

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,867

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 Content Type 

Everything posted by gosioux76

  1. gosioux76
    That's an interesting point, but as @GDAWG noted, that apparently didn't deter Knight from making continued attempts at acquiring the Trail Blazers. That bid was made in partnership with Dodgers co-owner Alan Smolinsky, so maybe the addition of a partner was enough not to trigger any conflict? And to this point, not only was his bid not accepted, it wasn't even acknowledged. This really great report by the Wall Street Journal in June shows that Blazers owner Jody Allen won't even take Knight's calls.
  2. gosioux76
    He's a fan of any and all sports, and he's also proven his interest in investing billions into Oregon and its institutions. The head of the Portland Diamond Project, Craig Cheek, is also a former Nike executive. So it's 100% possible that Phil could be the money behind any MLB project in Portland and that he's keeping his name out of it until it's more of a sure thing. But if that's the case, then they've made it really hard to legitimize this bid publicly. Then again, maybe they don't need to. If Phil intends to finance and own a Portland MLB team, the only people who would need to know are Rob Manfred, the members of any eventual expansion committee, and a handful of Portland stakeholders, such as the mayor.
  3. gosioux76
    The inclusion of Russell and Ciara Wilson into that so-called "ownership group" is ceremonial at best. The problem with Portland is that nobody knows where the money is coming from. Russell Wilson's a well-compensated pro athlete, but neither he nor his pop star wife have the kind of scratch to be majority owners of a multi-billion-dollar sports franchise. At this point, they're nothing more than ornaments to present a facade of legitimacy to their effort.
  4. gosioux76
    I'm sure there's a soft spot for this name in San Diego, but the old NASL names that treated the sport like a cute novelty just don't work for me. Sockers and the Minnesota Kicks (as much as I loved them) are two brands that should stay retired.
  5. gosioux76
    And it's a shame. I've always felt like that was a unique look, and the subsequent shift toward dark green seemed like too hard of a turn from the relative brightness of the expansion unis. But the biggest issue with that set -- and likely why they never stuck -- is the hard-to-define color palette. When your primary visuals use a purple/blue/green/yellow/gradient, it becomes hard to discern which color is the base and which are accents. It's a neat idea with a lot of potential, but you could really see the problem on display last night. Seemed like some players embraced the purple with their choice of accessories and baselayers. Others had neon green accessories, some navy, etc. They all looked good on their own, but there's no cohesion.
  6. gosioux76
    I’ve seen a lot of debate over the current health of both leagues or which one initiated merger talks, but I haven’t seen a single post saying — or even implying — the merged league will be successful. This post was made just so you can come back if this league fails and quote yourself saying “I told you so” to a fact nobody was arguing. This post is like saying, “You’re delusional if you think Starbucks will stop selling pumpkin spice lattes” or “you’re delusional if you think this country will outlaw cheeseburgers.”
  7. gosioux76
    I presume you've taken this directly from their business plan? I'm guessing it's right there in the summary: "we don't want to play in front of people because it's a blueprint for failure." I'm not sure I follow the logic of letting existing XFL brands fold just so you can create new ones in those same cities to replace them. There's a lot more value in expanding into, say, St. Louis and D.C. by taking on the Battlehawks and Defenders than investing capital to create entirely new entities. You seem pretty hellbent on this "we were all destined for failure" narrative without having any direct knowledge of whether that's the truth. There's absolutely no doubt that it's a big investment, but that means you also need to have a capital source that's patient enough and willing to take a lot of losses in the short-term to realize that long-term ROI. The USFL strategy, which is a prudent one, wasn't built around eschewing the idea of playing in each team's given market, as has been suggested in this thread, but toward working gradually toward that objective. It was pretty clear: play entirely in hubs in year one, then add more cities in year two, and continue to extend yourself gradually. So rather than requiring patient investors, it was asking its fans to be patient so it could grow at a more reasonable pace necessary for sustained growth. Based on this thread, it seems like the fans aren't willing to have that patience.
  8. gosioux76
    True. But we also don't know that "both leagues were losing money." In fact, we know relatively little about the motivations behind this merger outside of a lot of unverifiable reporting from alt-football blog sites. But when it comes to the USFL profit and XFL loss narratives, those have come from reputable publications like Sports Business Journal, Axios and Forbes. So if I'm going to speculate, which is all this really is, then I'll do so while leaning toward the more reputable sources of information.
  9. gosioux76
    But how do you know they're merging "to stay afloat?" I mentioned this earlier, but every indication has pointed to the fact that the XFL initiated these talks, not the USFL. There's a difference between agreeing to a merger out of desperation and merging because you see a growth opportunity. It's possible the USFL saw a little bit of both in this opportunity. And @McCall, you're right. I don't think year two was as successful as year one, so I'm sure the model wasn't likely to be sustainable. I just don't think that we can call the hub model a failure if it, in any way, can be attributed to Fox's ability to avoid operating at a loss.
  10. gosioux76
    Like most of you, I also don't care for the hub model, but we're also purists when it comes to sports leagues. Justifiably, we're used to the convention of teams representing cities and playing in them, which is why the hub model is so frustrating. But you have to ask yourself, in the case of these leagues, how do you measure success? If it's true, as Fox claims, that the USFL is profitable (especially compared with the XFL's massive losses) while working within a hub model, how exactly would that be "league suicide?" It seems pretty clear that the USFL was, from the start, a made-for-TV league and that Fox's motivation was to have pro football content on the air during the NFL offseason. If they're profitable, that suggests Fox has succeeded in generating substantial ad revenue while keeping the costs low enough to generate a profit. As a fan, the hub model stinks. But as a business, it seems to be working fairly well for Fox.
  11. gosioux76
    Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that the NFL has no need or apparent desire to have a league like this exist. It certainly doesn't want to cede any potential TV air time to a minor league, even if it's a feeder to its own product. If they wanted it this badly, they'd have adopted it stateside 20 years ago rather than letting the NFL Europe fold.
  12. gosioux76
    BREAKING: The XFL and USFL just confirmed their merger, but offered ZERO details.
  13. gosioux76
    BREAKING: USFL and XFL just confirmed the merger, but offered ZERO details. From the press release that just went out:
  14. gosioux76
    100%. If this is the name they're going for, you can't help but assume they're trying to insinuate, or work toward, being some kind of an extension to the NFL season. It's right there in the name: National (Spring) Football League. I wouldn't be surprised if the long-term strategy is to secure an actual affiliation with the NFL as a means of continued survival.
  15. gosioux76
    I like the simplified, wordless crest. It's classy and manages to convey the brand without being literal. A well-executed soccer crest. But that's about the end of what I like. They've toned down the green from the current rave green, but it still feels like too much. And adding the seafoam in addition to that green just doesn't make sense visually.
  16. gosioux76
    All of this is true. But none of it speaks directly to profitability. The original suggestion I was refuting was that the USFL and its hub model was a failure. I'm just pointing out that, as much as we don't like it, there's no evidence to back that up. There are, however, public proclamations that the USFL has been a profitable venture for Fox. You're 100% right that the XFL could have pursued this merger idea out of opportunity and not desperation; I can't argue otherwise. I wasn't attempting to assign reasoning for the XFL to do this, I was just pointing out that it wasn't the USFL that broached the subject.
  17. gosioux76
    All of the reporting we've seen so far on this merger suggests that merger talks were prompted by the XFL -- in particular its financier, RedBird Capital -- and not by the USFL. And unless someone here has seen the books themselves, we can't really know if the USFL turned a profit as they claim. As such, we also don't know that they didn't. From Forbes:
  18. gosioux76
    I'm not saying I believe them, but Fox has claimed that its USFL experiment has been profitable. So if to true, you'd have to imagine that the cost-savings from the hub model had a lot to do with it. The XFL's leadership, by contrast, claims it has lost around $60 million. And they play within their markets. I don't like the hub model either, but if the league is profitable, as Fox claims, then you can't really say the USFL hasn't created a successful model. And you can see pretty clearly why they'd prefer the hub model. The question we should be asking is how long the hub model will be necessary before the league feels comfortable it can transition into markets and maintain some of its profit margin.
  19. gosioux76
    As @TBGKon just showed, the data wasn't terribly hard to find. And as @BBTV noted, even anecdotally it appears that MLB has steered itself back toward a growth trajectory with this year's rule changes and made the game far more accessible and easier to enjoy. I can understand why there would be skepticism about expansion considering the sport's struggles over the past decade, but it seems a a bit cynical to just dismiss it without considering the real positive direction the league has taken this year. MLB has stopped the bleeding. Now let's see where it goes next.
  20. gosioux76
    To be fair, Rob Manfred has addressed the likelihood of expansion about as often as Adam Silver has. Both commissioners have said their leagues would explore expansion. Manfred has been saying as much since at least 2018, and even mentioned six likely markets at that time: Las Vegas, Portland, Montreal, Charlotte, Nashville and Vancouver, and even suggested Mexico as a possibility. He's addressed the topic so often that I don't really think you can call it theoretical.
  21. gosioux76
    It's a little jarring to see these using the neon green instead of the original kelly, but I'm not about to complain. I love these. EDIT: The language on the Wolves' website claims that this is the same green -- they call it Old Shep Green — but it's clearly much more pronounced on these jerseys compared with the originals.
  22. gosioux76
    If it's done right, with a small footprint stadium and minimal to no taxpayer investment, I'm confident Portland will show up to support MLB. But it's not the kind of market where you're going to get a full-throated community endorsement without seeing the fine print, and that's a good thing. The people there, from my experience, are going to want some guarantees that a stadium development won't gentrify or tax resources, that it'll make ample use of public transit and be otherwise sustainable. In a city with a severe housing shortage, they're going to fight like hell if resources get diverted away from housing to fund a baseball stadium, as they should. So any project would have to find a way to address that issue. Because of all this, you're not going to see, outside of the typical meatheads on sports-talk radio, a ton of evidence that the market is thirsty for MLB, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't still fill a stadium on the regular. The bigger issue with Portland is that the group vying to bring MLB there has gone out of its way to avoid saying who's backing the effort financially. So far it's been a lot of talk about stadium locations and negotiations with the city, but no hint at who's money is driving the effort or who would own the franchise. To a lot of people, myself included, that's a big red flag.
  23. gosioux76
    I've seen this point made several times over the years and, while I understand how someone comes to this conclusion, it's disingenuous at best. First of all, Portland didn't make a choice in this matter. The owner of the Timbers, who also owned the AAA club, was required by MLS to convert his venue into a soccer-specific stadium, which meant it would no longer work for baseball. He was unable to secure a location for a new baseball stadium, nor public money to finance it, and made the correct move to sell the team so he can focus singularly on MLS. And let's face it: the AAA product isn't that great and shouldn't be used as a measurement for whether a market can support MLB. Even if it were, a few years after the AAA Beavers left, the Portland suburb of Hillsboro landed the Hops, which has shifted from being a low-A club to a high-A club and continues to draw enough support that its owners are plotting a stadium expansion. This, however, isn't an endorsement of Portland as a MLB expansion market. I think a team there would do fine, but it's nowhere near a safe bet, and the metro's decades-long period of growth appears to be at its end. I just can't stand the argument that losing AAA baseball is the reason why MLB would fail there. Also: What @LMU said, but with far fewer words. haha
  24. gosioux76
    Is it, though? A franchise relocation would have certainly been the easier path toward landing a MLB team, but now that the A's and Rays stadium issues seem closer to resolution, the league will almost certainly be on a faster track toward expansion. So either way you look at it, Nashville won't likely be in a holding pattern for much longer.
  25. gosioux76
    Yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if, as owner, they saw value in expanding the exposure of the league across other networks. It's also possible that the XFL's TV deal isn't of value to them at all. The XFL also has a partnership with the NFL to be a testing ground for new rules, innovations, etc. That affiliation could be of value to the USFL.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept