NYC Cosmos

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Prospect

Contact Methods

  • Instagram
  • Snapchat

Profile Information

  • Favourite Teams
    Carolina Panthers, New York Cosmos

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I really want the league to succeed even though I admit I don't watch much of it. I feel bad for the front offices in Memphis, Salt Lake and Birmingham. I wish more people would show up. Getting back to the situation in Sacramento, I sincerely hope they don't suddenly switch gears and go with the WLAF model – some teams owned by the league and some with private investors. Montreal was a crap storm. The NFL gave some Molson executive a franchise with a 10-year balloon loan. I went to see a game. The game was good but the crowd was dismal. "Ownership" didn't have a clue how to attract fans. Sacramento was stable. The Maloof family owned Birmingham but wanted to move them to Houston. Frankfurt and London were owned by the league. Barcelona was "owned" by Josep Figueras who turned the team over to the NFL. New York/New Jersey, Orlando (if I am not mistaking), and San Antonio had stable ownerships. Raleigh-Durham was owned by the infamous George Shinn, who threw in the towel after one year. I guess he could be called "stable" too.
  2. The problem with the MLS is that the Republic's ownership group has changed and restructured which is a black mark. Now, pardon the pun, I think they are on track. If the league continues to attract eyeballs and can survive to next year, and if the stars are aligned, I would think Burkle would want to look at a franchise. I think that is the only city left in California for a franchise. I don't think San Jose would work. That is 49ers' country. If Sacramento is a go, I think they have o go to Portland as well. I don't see a natural rivalry with San Diego. San Diego is closer to Arizona. If you want to play the franchise game, let's take a look at cities that are proposing soccer-specific projects. Of course, it depends on the deals made with their respective cities to build. Was the land given by the city? Is the city going to kick in money? etc. Charlotte – no go because of Panthers. Va. Beach and Raleigh-Durham are more likely Miami – not a chance Austin – Is Anthony Precourt paying for the stadium? If so... a team makes sense because of recouping his investment. However, you have Dallas in the XFL Cincinnati – Not a chance Detroit – Not a chance San Antonio – spoken for with the Alamo Dome Sacramento - discussed above
  3. I think the City of Sacramento will ultimately decide if an AAF team will play there. The Railyards project is driven by the city, in an attempt to help the Republic get an MLS franchise and attract events to the city.
  4. All this speculation is well and good, but if we want the league to stick around, shouldn't we be bringing this forward to them? Or does our friend here on the board take our comments to the powers that be? Either way, fans drive the vehicle. If people tune in and see a sea of empty seats, will they watch again? Fans ultimately make the product better by voting with their dollars and eyeballs. If I was the league, I would play up the Birmingham-Memphis "rivalry." They have played each other in the WFL, CFL, USFL, XFL and now the AAF. UAB and Memphis State have only played 15 times though. Also, why not have a research firm do a survey over Swagbucks? I am sure they will have plenty of survey takers.
  5. Here's the thing with the AAF and MLS stadia. Money talks. If Red Bull Arena pulls 5 extra dates, I don't see what the problem is. Red Bull is always searching for new revenue streams. In Columbus, the City of Columbus had a huge hand in saving the Crew. They are building a new downtown stadium, right? If the AAF came to the city council with a proposal, I don't see how the Crew would have a real say. As for the major cities – Cincinnati, Minnesota, etc., the answer would be no. And those cities wouldn't support a team anyway. And, it is too cold. If Sacramento would finally get the Railyards project moving, the Sacramento Republic FC and a football team could play there. Sacramento has been burned 3 times – the Surge, the Goldminers and the Mountain Lions. Louisville is uncharted territory and U of L would have to give permission to use the stadium. Louisville would set up some intense southern rivalries with Birmingham and Memphis. But where else can you play? There are only so many cities, and only so many cities that want/will support football.
  6. So where would you go? Texas – no. You have San Antonio. Austin isn't interested and Houston and Dallas are XFL. Florida – no. You have Orlando. Tampa Bay is XFL. Shreveport – ??? Virginia Beach – Interesting Louisville – would work Columbus – would work. Decent crowds for the Glory in '92 I think Columbus is as far north as the league would be willing to go.
  7. Moving to Sacramento is a no. The stadium they have is inadequate. It was when the Surge played there. On the other hand, people did come out for the Surge. Oakland said no to the league (and the XFL) as did St. Louis, which had scheduling conflicts. Where to go then? Suppose the NFL did buy a controlling interest in the league or at the very least became a 50-50 partner (could this be what the Hurricanes' owner is thinking? A nice return on investment!) where would they put teams or move teams? St. Too many bitter feelings. Sacramento? Yeah, I suppose. Louisville? The NFL has never considered that city for anything. Raleigh Durham? The Skyhawks were an abject failure. They could try Mexico City or Monterrey, but those markets won't settle for minor league. NY Metro area? Not a chance unless they play at Red Bull Arena in Jersey, which is a bitch to get to from the PATH train. Columbus? Only f they share the Crew's stadium. That might work. Milwaukee? No. Packers' country. It is funny because there is a ready-made market in Germany. Fans are still pissed that the Galaxy and Fire went away. here are still very active NFL Europe Facebook groups.
  8. I guess the only way to get around this is for the NFL to buy a controlling interest in the AAF.
  9. t seems to me that the AAF is content where they are. The XFL is targeting larger markets. I don't see how NFL allocation helps them. I would guess instead of a bidding process, the NFL, as a business, could say that they prefer the AAF because the AAF model is more in line with what the NFL wants. In that scenario, I don't think you could say antitrust. Also, I could see the XFL on Fox and of course on the WWE channel.
  10. Ah, right. What if the NFL was to put out a bid to both leagues for feeder status? That would mean there would be fair competition based on each entity's RFI response and negotiations. My guess is that the AAF wants to be a feeder league. The XFL is following the USFL's blueprint and will compete for college players and present NFL talent. If that is the XFL's stated goal, I don't see how this can be an anti-trust violation. Further, I don't think the AAF's broadcast deals prevent the same networks from carrying the XFL. The question is, if the XFL approaches the NFL and asks the league to put XFL games on NFL Network, and the NFL refuses, then that could be an anti-trust violation. Say the NFL RFI contains a question regarding broadcasting, that the winner of the bid would have there games broadcast on NFL N. Would that be an anti-trust violation?
  11. So in other words, because the WLAF/NFL Europe had no competitors, loaning players to those clubs was ok?
  12. Louisville is a great idea. Nashville at Vanderbilt Stadium? Perfect for Memphis. Tulsa? No. Oklahoma City? No. Raleigh-Durham? No. Portland had support in the USFL (read Paul Reeth's book.) Columbus? Only if they play at the soccer stadium. Hartford? Too cold. Sacramento. Yes (if they ever build the stadium). If they expand they would be stupid to do so.
  13. I would love to see what they had. I scored a San Diego Chargers Starter sideline jacked for $10 at a used clothing store.