Gothamite

North American Pro Soccer 2017

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Digby said:

It would be very telling re: MLS priorities, if a mutually agreeable FC Cincinnati-Nippert Stadium deal was rejected but an indefinite period of time at Yankee Stadium is just fine.

Difference is that NYCFC (the Yankees) own that stadium.  They're not renting it like FCCincy would at nippert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AstroBull21 said:

Difference is that NYCFC (the Yankees) own that stadium.  They're not renting it like FCCincy would at nippert

 

I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

 

How did Portland Timbers get around this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

 

How did Portland Timbers get around this?

The Timbers have the master lease to the stadium.  Peregrine Sports LLC, the Merritt Paulson-led investment group that owns the Timbers and the Thorns has full booking power and priority via the agreement with the city.

 

Portland State doesn't get a lease for their games from the city for their games, they directly deal with the Timbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Digby said:

It would be very telling re: MLS priorities, if a mutually agreeable FC Cincinnati-Nippert Stadium deal was rejected but an indefinite period of time at Yankee Stadium is just fine.

 

That it's more important to them for their teams to be in financially stable and controlled stadium situations then in flashy situations that are really at the mercy of outside forces... yep. It's very telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Digby said:

It would be very telling re: MLS priorities, if a mutually agreeable FC Cincinnati-Nippert Stadium deal was rejected but an indefinite period of time at Yankee Stadium is just fine.

 

Why?

 

The Yankees, as may be suspected, control Yankee Stadium.  Once they were brought in to the NYCFC ownership group, that satified the stadium requirement.

 

The Yankee Stadium situation is directly analogous to Seattle and Atlanta.  I'm trying to figure out why you think this is at all the same FCC being a mere tenant, renting their stadium from a totally unrelated college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the financial part is in order, just at the expense of the product on the field. My point with Cincy is that the stadium is good, the crowds are great (and seemingly sustainable, at this point) -- however I need to say that I misread the news story where I thought the owners were petitioning MLS to allow Nippert to work longterm, but in fact it was just a citizens' group. Owners seem like they want to build a new stadium in Cincinnati or Kentucky regardless. Seems to me like a Portland-type situation might work there, if a rent payment isn't holding Portland back from thriving as a club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Digby said:

Right, the financial part is in order, just at the expense of the product on the field. My point with Cincy is that the stadium is good, the crowds are great (and seemingly sustainable, at this point) -- however I need to say that I misread the news story where I thought the owners were petitioning MLS to allow Nippert to work longterm, but in fact it was just a citizens' group. Owners seem like they want to build a new stadium in Cincinnati or Kentucky regardless. Seems to me like a Portland-type situation might work there, if a rent payment isn't holding Portland back from thriving as a club.

You realize that nearly all clubs in North America pay a municipality some payment in exchange for using the facility, right? The municipality floats the bonds.

 

What is your hangup regarding Portland specifically?

Share this post


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

 

Why?

 

The Yankees, as may be suspected, control Yankee Stadium.  Once they were brought in to the NYCFC ownership group, that satified the stadium requirement. 

+1

Here's the FC Cincinnati clause with the university. If selected to MLS, they've got to renegotiate with 30 days.

 

Quote

 If Licensee joins the Major League Soccer, LLC ("MLS"), then the Parties agree to renegotiate, in good faith, to increase the License Fees within 30 days of Licensee joining the MLS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Digby said:

Right, the financial part is in order, just at the expense of the product on the field. My point with Cincy is that the stadium is good, the crowds are great (and seemingly sustainable, at this point) -- however I need to say that I misread the news story where I thought the owners were petitioning MLS to allow Nippert to work longterm, but in fact it was just a citizens' group.

 

Nonsense.  But whatever.  Boy, we're into some incredible goalpost-moving now. 

 

Sustainable?  Don't know at all.  Though I'd like to find out. 

 

The fact remains that MLS has requirements, and all would-be owners need to comply.  FCC knows the rules and if they want in their know they need to do what everybody else is doing.  It's neither unusual nor unfair to hold them to the same standard everyone else has had to meet. NYCFC is as much a red herring to this conversation as Portland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

+1

Here's the FC Cincinnati clause with the university. If selected to MLS, they've got to renegotiate with 30 days.

 

Which makes sense if they intend on using Nippert as a temporary stadium for any period of time.

 

Also sound legal thinking, protecting the school in case MLS was ever to change its expansion rules.

Share this post


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

 

Which makes sense if they intend on using Nippert as a temporary stadium for any period of time.

 

Also sound legal thinking, protecting the school in case MLS was ever to change its expansion rules.

The rent charged by the university  ($5,000/game) under the current terms is only for USL games. MLS expansion would necessitate an increase and the university damn well knows that.

 

Digby, I've got the Portland agreement with Peregrine on another device. I can try to link to it as it really appears you've never seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

The rent charged by the university  ($5,000/game) under the current terms is only for USL games. MLS expansion would necessitate an increase and the university damn well knows that.

 

Digby, I've got the Portland agreement with Peregrine on another device. I can try to link to it as it really appears you've never seen it.

 

I haven't! My understanding from reading is $950,000 per year plus a 7% tax on tickets to Portland? And then Paulson keeps the remaining revenues, and obviously has sunk tons of money into renovating. My "hangup" on Portland is just that the Portland model seems like it's working very well for all parties involved, but also that this model wouldn't be allowed for new teams, as subsequent teams have either had to build a brand-new stadium of their own or play in an existing one they own (not lease from a municipality).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Digby said:

My "hangup" on Portland is just that the Portland model seems like it's working very well for all parties involved, but also that this model wouldn't be allowed for new teams, as subsequent teams have either had to build a brand-new stadium of their own or play in an existing one they own (not lease from a municipality).

 

Thats not true. Why do you think they can't lease a stadium?  They can, so long as the MLS team controls both the scheduling and the revenue streams.  Chester, PA owns the Union's stadium.  The City of Toronto owns their stadium.  That's just off the top of my head; without checking the others, I'm sure those aren't the only two.

 

I don't think the Civic Stadium (or whatever they're calling it now) deal is as unusual as you appear to think it is.  It's just that instead of building a new municipal stadium for the new MLS team, they renovated an old one.

 

No other expansion bid has had access to an existing facility that wasn't already controlled by another team.  Where Portland is unusual is that the city was willing to kick out the existing baseball team so they could hand stadium control over to the Timbers.  But if any other stadium entity is willing to do that, I'm sure MLS is eager and willing to listen. 

 

Again, the problem with Nippert is not that FCC doesn't own it.  It's that FCC would be a mere sub-tenant, at the mercy of another team's scheduling and unable to reap the benefits of the revenue streams a stadium provides. MLS long ago identified stadium control as the key to long-term financial stability, and won't let its new clubs be second-class renters in somebody else's building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right -- I think that's what I meant initially (and vaguely) by "mutually agreeable" -- like I wouldn't expect to FCC to make it to MLS renting a college stadium on a flat fee. But, that stadium is big, soccer-ready (except the turf?), and seems to work very well apart from the revenue thing. And tbh it seems like a waste of resources and money to me to build a new stadium in Cincy or Newport when there's one that's close to MLS-ready right there, and I'd hate to lose out on them making the jump just because of it. Seems like MLS, the team, and UC ought to be able to figure SOMETHING out that's financially and professionally acceptable for pro soccer -- surely they can figure scheduling out around 8 college football games, and as far as I can tell Nippert isn't used for much else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Digby said:

Right -- I think that's what I meant initially (and vaguely) by "mutually agreeable" -- like I wouldn't expect to FCC to make it to MLS renting a college stadium on a flat fee. But, that stadium is big, soccer-ready (except the turf?), and seems to work very well apart from the revenue thing. And tbh it seems like a waste of resources and money to me to build a new stadium in Cincy or Newport when there's one that's close to MLS-ready right there, and I'd hate to lose out on them making the jump just because of it. Seems like MLS, the team, and UC ought to be able to figure SOMETHING out that's financially and professionally acceptable for pro soccer -- surely they can figure scheduling out around 8 college football games, and as far as I can tell Nippert isn't used for much else?

The University of Cincinnati built and raised the $85M for their 2015 renivation/expansion which included a new press box, new concession areas, 35 suites, and 1,100 club seats. Why should they really want to bend over?

 

The West Pavilion, thenew suite tower, has rentable spaces through Conference Services, including the suites.

http://www.uc.edu/eventservices/venues/wpavilion.html

 

 

Remaining at Nippert, FC Cincinnati has the following revenue restrictions:

*Zero on-campus parking revenue, which basically means zero total parking revenue

*50% of the concession revenues, which is 50% of UC's cut from whatever was made by them.

*No naming rights

*Little advertising revenues

*Cannot book outside events

*Limited suite revenue outside of the ticket price.

 

Edited by dfwabel
added details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, this is why I recognize a new agreement would be needed, perhaps UC wouldn't want any part of it. Sorry for suggesting it, dropping it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Where Portland is unusual is that the city was willing to kick out the existing baseball team so they could hand stadium control over to the Timbers.

 

The existing baseball team and the Timbers were both owned by Merritt Paulson. He chose the plan that would have had the Beavers leave PGE Park in order to be renovated to accommodate the Timbers. As such, the City of Portland didn't kick the Beavers out of PGE Park in order to hand control of the facility over to the Timbers.

Merritt Paulson simultaneously owned the Pacific Coast League's Portland Beavers, the United Soccer League's Portland Timbers, and the rights to a Major League Soccer franchise in Portland. When he was awarded the rights to the MLS franchise in March of 2009, Paulson opted to have PGE Park renovated for his soccer team(s). Meanwhile, the City of Portland was to explore options for building the Paulson-owned Beavers a new ballpark elsewhere in Portland by 2011. Numerous sites were considered, but - for various reasons, including public criticism - were ultimately rejected. Ultimately, with the 2011 Pacific Coast League and Major League Soccer seasons fast approaching, Paulson elected to sell the Beavers in October of 2010.

The group that bought the team, led by then-San Diego Padres owner Jeff Moorad, talked of moving the team to a new ballpark in Escondido, California. Ultimately, Moorad and his partners relocated the team to Tucson, Arizona in time for the 2011 Pacific Coast League season. Eventually, plans for the Escondido ballpark were dropped and the team was sold to MountainStar Sports Group. The new owners purchased the team with the plan to relocate it to El Paso, Texas in time for the 2014 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant that the city collectively chose soccer over baseball.  Not the City.  

 

Paulson owned both clubs, and was trying to get stadiums built (or in the case of Civic Stadium, renovated) for both of them.  The soccer stadium met approval, the baseball stadium did not. 

 

Paulson sold the Beavers when it was clear he wouldn't get a second park built.  And everyone knew all throughout the process that it meant the Beavers would move. It was a pretty stark choice, and Portland chose soccer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Sorry, I meant that the city collectively chose soccer over baseball.  Not the City.  

 

Paulson owned both clubs, and was trying to get stadiums built (or in the case of Civic Stadium, renovated) for both of them.  The soccer stadium met approval, the baseball stadium did not. 

 

Paulson sold the Beavers when it was clear he wouldn't get a second park built.  And everyone knew all throughout the process that it meant the Beavers would move. It was a pretty stark choice, and Portland chose soccer. 

FInancially, there was no way a minor league team (even AAA) was going to stop a 'major league team' (even MLS) from setting up shop in Portland. Though, at the time, it seemed the attempts at getting a stadium for the Beavers was a rouse and not really an honest effort by their owner or the city/metro area to establish a stadium. Portland may be a big city, but could they support an NBA team with 40+ dates a year, MLS with 20+ for league and other events, Portland State mid-level DI football games, AND a top level minor league baseball team with 70+ home dates?

 

It starts feeling like Detroit back in the 90s with Illitch owning the AFL's Detroit Drive and then buying the Tigers. First thing to go was the Drive since even that little competition, which he owned, draining ticket paying fans from his baseball team on Saturday nights in the Summer was too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more than that, though - I had friends who were season ticket holders of both clubs, and then minor league Timbers had more energy in Portland than the minor league Beavers. There's a reason Paulson made the choice he did, owning both clubs. 

 

In some cities, AAA baseball is strong enough to survive the coming of MLS. Salt Lake City springs to mind.   But my impression from the time was that given a choice, Portland would have chosen even minor league soccer over minor league baseblll.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.