North American Pro Soccer 2016

[MJWalker45]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:39 PM, Nyk33 said:

I can't believe FC Cincinnati beat the Crew in attendance with 20,000 people. 

 

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/04/17/fc-cincinnati-set-usl-attendance-record-more-20000-saturday

Mapfre Stadium's max is at 19,000 for non USMNT matches so it's not a surprise. The big question is what will be the attendance at the end of the year. 

[Gothamite]

5 hours ago, DG_Now said:

Another question: does MLS need to be expanding so much?

 

Yes, actually. 

 

This is is the perfect time for the league to embark on a considered program of aggressive expansion. The league has survived longer than any other pro outdoor soccer league in this country, has gotten past the early rocky years and are now on stable footing.  Now, in order to keep growing the game they need to bring in better players, which means spending more money, which means increasing long-term revenues. They can and should bring in strong organizations and/or valuable markets to help do that. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, actually. 

 

This is is the perfect time for the league to embark on a considered program of aggressive expansion. The league has survived longer than any other pro outdoor soccer league in this country, has gotten past the early rocky years and are now on stable footing.  Now, in order to keep growing the game they need to bring in better players, which means spending more money, which means increasing long-term revenues. They can and should bring in strong organizations and/or valuable markets to help do that. 

 

Thank you for that answer.

 

My belief is MLS has a ways to go to increase overall talent. The way to do that is with money. If the way to get more money is by increasing overall league revenues via expansion, then by all means, let's do that.

 

My concern is that, like with every other American league, expansion leads to talent dilution. Soccer is a different kettle of fish, of course, because the talent pool is global.

[JTernup]

I really like this 20 team MLS and think that 20-24 is the perfect number. I'm disappointed that they will likely be surpassing that in the not so distant future. The biggest problem I see with MLS is that there are some good markets that were left out and some not so good markets that have clubs. This can be seen in my Rapids, I think Denver is a great city and has proven itself to be an important mid-market city for all of the major sports. But... Denver cannot support NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS. I honestly think it is more of a 3 major sports city as far as support goes, not a 5 major sports city. The Nuggets, Avs and Rapids are ultimately not very well supported. Cities like Denver are not nearly as good for MLS as cities like Portland, KC, SLC and Orlando where they are a much bigger draw. That is why I think LAFC and Houston were also bad places to go for MLS.

[crashcarson15]

The initial thing around FC Cincinnati reminds me a lot of the buzz around the Eleven two years ago — especially with that “random people talking about soccer” idea.

 

Biggest difference is that FC Cincinnati plays in a much larger stadium; I think those early Eleven attendances would’ve hit 15k at the very least if the facility was there.

 

It’ll be interesting to see how well it holds. My gut is that they’ll drop to around 8k or 10k, but we’ll see. Still really cool to see.

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, kcchiefsfan said:

I really like this 20 team MLS and think that 20-24 is the perfect number. I'm disappointed that they will likely be surpassing that in the not so distant future. The biggest problem I see with MLS is that there are some good markets that were left out and some not so good markets that have clubs. This can be seen in my Rapids, I think Denver is a great city and has proven itself to be an important mid-market city for all of the major sports. But... Denver cannot support NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS. I honestly think it is more of a 3 major sports city as far as support goes, not a 5 major sports city. The Nuggets, Avs and Rapids are ultimately not very well supported. Cities like Denver are not nearly as good for MLS as cities like Portland, KC, SLC and Orlando where they are a much bigger draw. That is why I think LAFC and Houston were also bad places to go for MLS.

 

That doesn't make any sense.  The Dynamo averaged nearly 21,000 fans per game last year.  They seem to be doing fine even though Houston has basketball, baseball and football teams.   And Los Angeles?   LAFC will be successful for the same reason that NYCFC has been so successful so far; huge markets with a growing population, much of which comes from soccer-loving nations. 

 

If Denver is struggling, I'd say that's more about Denver itself (not to mention a bad team and stadium way the hell out in the middle of nowhere) than it does about the league. 

 

Yes, it's nice to not have competition for entertainment dollars.  But MLS needs the major markets as well as the smaller ones it can dominate. 

[buckeye]

19 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Mapfre Stadium's max is at 19,000 for non USMNT matches so it's not a surprise. The big question is what will be the attendance at the end of the year. 

I think depending on if they can sustain the amount of fans they get for Cincy, I'd like to see them move up to MLS. They would make a good geographic rival for the Crew. I think both Cities would have enough supporters to make both teams work, along with gathering more fans from nearby states like Kentucky and grow the sport even more.

[dfwabel]

18 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, actually. 

 

This is is the perfect time for the league to embark on a considered program of aggressive expansion. The league has survived longer than any other pro outdoor soccer league in this country, has gotten past the early rocky years and are now on stable footing.  Now, in order to keep growing the game they need to bring in better players, which means spending more money, which means increasing long-term revenues. They can and should bring in strong organizations and/or valuable markets to help do that. 

 

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That doesn't make any sense.  The Dynamo averaged nearly 21,000 fans per game last year.  They seem to be doing fine even though Houston has basketball, baseball and football teams.   And Los Angeles?   LAFC will be successful for the same reason that NYCFC has been so successful so far; huge markets with a growing population, much of which comes from soccer-loving nations. 

 

If Denver is struggling, I'd say that's more about Denver itself (not to mention a bad team and stadium way the hell out in the middle of nowhere) than it does about the league. 

 

Yes, it's nice to not have competition for entertainment dollars.  But MLS needs the major markets as well as the smaller ones it can dominate. 

They are expanding because there are numerous franchises with flat attendance numbers (COL, FCD, NE, CMB, DCU) and even more with flat revenues.  Expansion fees and honeymoon years with new franchises aid in avoiding zero growth. 

 

Rapid growth can work work, but look away from sport at some of the other fast business expansions through franchising and see where issues occur since "same store" sales are flat.  The biggest example for those who are age 32+ is how Krispy Kreme was nearly ruined with rapid expansion and growth gone wrong.

 

MLS seems to be betting on the next round of media contracts with 28 teams, but the media landscape is going to be different than the latest contract signed. 

[JTernup]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That doesn't make any sense.  The Dynamo averaged nearly 21,000 fans per game last year.  They seem to be doing fine even though Houston has basketball, baseball and football teams.   And Los Angeles?   LAFC will be successful for the same reason that NYCFC has been so successful so far; huge markets with a growing population, much of which comes from soccer-loving nations. 

 

If Denver is struggling, I'd say that's more about Denver itself (not to mention a bad team and stadium way the hell out in the middle of nowhere) than it does about the league. 

 

Yes, it's nice to not have competition for entertainment dollars.  But MLS needs the major markets as well as the smaller ones it can dominate. 

Oops on Houston, I was thinking of Dallas. As for LAFC, it seems like a much different situation than NYCFC. Galaxy seem to be really well supported in LA and I just think that there may be other more deserving markets than LA2.

 

As for the Rapids, I completely blamed Denver, the only blame MLS gets in that is whether they repeat their mistakes or learn from them. The Rapids have never had great attendance, so how the team plays doesn't really factor in because the Rapids have been good more than they've been bad. The stadium is B.S. I travel 45 minutes to get to DSGP and just as far to get to any other stadium or arena. If people really want to go they'll make it out there. The stadium has an effect but my point is that if there weren't other problems with the Denver market then the stadium wouldn't be an issue.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

They are expanding because there are numerous franchises with flat attendance numbers (COL, FCD, NE, CMB, DCU) and even more with flat revenues.  Expansion fees and honeymoon years with new franchises aid in avoiding zero growth. 

 

Rapid growth can work work, but look away from sport at some of the other fast business expansions through franchising and see where issues occur since "same store" sales are flat.  The biggest example for those who are age 32+ is how Krispy Kreme was nearly ruined with rapid expansion and growth gone wrong.

 

MLS seems to be betting on the next round of media contracts with 28 teams, but the media landscape is going to be different than the latest contract signed. 

 

I think you're conflating issues.  That some franchises have flat attendance numbers isn't the issue.  The box office in Dallas isn't going to be harmed by a second team in Los Angeles, in fact if that second teams brings name players to town on a road trip it might actually help.

 

As for Krispy Kreme and franchise saturation, that was in no small part because they allowed stores to cannibalize the sales of neighboring stores.   I'm curious as to where you think this is happening.  If you're thinking "LA", I won't be able to agree with you - early indications are that NYCFC has been great for Red Bull, creating interest in derby matches and energizing the fan base.

[JTernup]

Well, my point that seems similar to dfwabel's is that if they could go back in time MLS might have started with smaller less competitive markets instead of how they did. Orlando instead of Miami, RSL instead of Colorado, San Antonio instead of Dallas, and  Seattle or Portland instead of Chicago, Chivas and Tampa. 

My problem with this expansion is is it well planned out, are these the best markets? I'm really concerned about ATL and LAFC in those regards, not because I think they will be the next Fusion or Chivas but more that there may be better markets out there that aren't as competitive in the other big 4.

 

With that said I think MLS is doing fantastic and that aside from how I would like a league to look and possibly talent dilution this mass expansion will be good.

[Gothamite]

I don't know about that either.  I think they needed to secure spaces in large markets just to survive those first few years. 

 

There is only one market that could have made an argument over LA and Atlanta, and that's Sacramento.  Given that they apprazear to be next, I don't see any reason to fret over the next round of expansion. 

[dfwabel]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I think you're conflating issues.  That some franchises have flat attendance numbers isn't the issue.  The box office in Dallas isn't going to be harmed by a second team in Los Angeles, in fact if that second teams brings name players to town on a road trip it might actually help.

 

As for Krispy Kreme and franchise saturation, that was in no small part because they allowed stores to cannibalize the sales of neighboring stores.   I'm curious as to where you think this is happening.  If you're thinking "LA", I won't be able to agree with you - early indications are that NYCFC has been great for Red Bull, creating interest in derby matches and energizing the fan base.

In terms of KK, I look at it more corporate getting greddy with franchise fees to increase stock price and not seeing through the supply chain logistics. It parallels MLS specifically, as single entity, they need the liquidity from expansion fees to acquire better talent and thus a better national and international rights, but neglect the original/older markets and their supply chains (academies).  As gate driven as MLS is, when corporate neglects the issues with those older markets, that is telling to me.

 

For me, it kinda started circa 2012 when Clark Hunt put his share of the Crew up for sale, essentially ending multiple ownership investors. If you're growth isn't flat, you typically are advised not to sell.

[Gothamite]

There's a lot to unpack here.  I hope you don't mind me breaking it up.

 

17 hours ago, dfwabel said:

In terms of KK, I look at it more corporate getting greddy with franchise fees to increase stock price and not seeing through the supply chain logistics. It parallels MLS specifically, as single entity, they need the liquidity from expansion fees to acquire better talent and thus a better national and international rights, but neglect the original/older markets and their supply chains (academies).  As gate driven as MLS is, when corporate neglects the issues with those older markets, that is telling to me.

 

 

How do you think MLS is neglecting the original/older markets?  Academy spending on the whole is well up, with teams spending around 30% of their budgets on player development.  Not to mention that MLS just relaxed its salary-cap rules where Homegrown Players are involved, so clubs can retain more of the talent they nurture. 

 

17 hours ago, dfwabel said:

For me, it kinda started circa 2012 when Clark Hunt put his share of the Crew up for sale, essentially ending multiple ownership investors. If you're growth isn't flat, you typically are advised not to sell.

 

 

The Hunts selling off their multiple clubs isn't a sign that the league was in financial trouble.  Quite the contrary, actually - the only reason anyone owned more than one club in the first place was because the league was capital-poor in the beginning.  That was the only way they could get off the ground, and survive the first couple years.   When other investors started clamoring to join, that indicated the league was actually in great shape.

[Nyk33]

Don Garber announced the candidates for expansion. In terms of priority he listed St, Louis & Sacramento as the front runners followed by Detroit, San Diego, San Antonio, Austin, & Cincinnati. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-soccer/story/2855588/st-louis-and-sacramento-front-runners-for-mls-expansion-don-garber

 

Can someone please explain to me the appeal of Austin for MLS? 

[jmoe12]

Wrong thread

[Seadragon76]

51 minutes ago, Nyk33 said:

Don Garber announced the candidates for expansion. In terms of priority he listed St, Louis & Sacramento as the front runners followed by Detroit, San Diego, San Antonio, Austin, & Cincinnati. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-soccer/story/2855588/st-louis-and-sacramento-front-runners-for-mls-expansion-don-garber

 

Can someone please explain to me the appeal of Austin for MLS? 

 

I don't see it either, man. Austin has a team in the USL, but isn't playing this season (Flooding took out their first home field and then league standards took both of their home fields out, so since they couldn't find a place they are sitting out this season). I have to think that someone there is blowing a hell of a lot of smoke up Garber's ass to consider Austin in this picture.

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, Nyk33 said:

Don Garber announced the candidates for expansion. In terms of priority he listed St, Louis & Sacramento as the front runners followed by Detroit, San Diego, San Antonio, Austin, & Cincinnati. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-soccer/story/2855588/st-louis-and-sacramento-front-runners-for-mls-expansion-don-garber

 

Can someone please explain to me the appeal of Austin for MLS? 

11th largest city in the US and increases by 25% every decade

Expanding Latino and Asian middle class.

The number of children is increasing, but total share of households with kids isn't, so there's disposable income.

 

However, the city center is kind of a mess and a SSS is going to be hard to get both land and voters to approve any vote. Then there's the issue of if the city and/or Travis County will work with UT to replace the Frank Erwin  Center which is on the edge of campus, next to downtown and will be razed for a med school.

 

[Nyk33]

13 hours ago, dfwabel said:

11th largest city in the US and increases by 25% every decade

Expanding Latino and Asian middle class.

The number of children is increasing, but total share of households with kids isn't, so there's disposable income.

 

However, the city center is kind of a mess and a SSS is going to be hard to get both land and voters to approve any vote. Then there's the issue of if the city and/or Travis County will work with UT to replace the Frank Erwin  Center which is on the edge of campus, next to downtown and will be razed for a med school.

 

 

I know of Austin's growth but the city hasn't shown anything when it comes to supporting a local soccer team. 

 

Both versions of the Austin Aztex (one of the dumbest names ever) recorded yearly average attendances of 2-3 thousand which isn't something that screams MLS to me. 

[MJWalker45]

15 hours ago, Nyk33 said:

Don Garber announced the candidates for expansion. In terms of priority he listed St, Louis & Sacramento as the front runners followed by Detroit, San Diego, San Antonio, Austin, & Cincinnati. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-soccer/story/2855588/st-louis-and-sacramento-front-runners-for-mls-expansion-don-garber

 

Can someone please explain to me the appeal of Austin for MLS? 

To get the Spurs to push building up the stadium quicker? There's no reason for Austin to be on the same level as San Antonio. Unless they have a location picked out that haven't told anyone about I see no reason for them to be in the