Jump to content

North American Pro Soccer 2019

Gothamite

By Gothamite
in Sports In General

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
MJWalker45

MJWalker45

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

Don't forget about Montreal either. That could be another open spot if they were to go to the CPL.

I think Montreal would rather stay in MLS. And if they leave they'll have to sell their MLS license to someone else. I'd suggest San Antonio. If Cincinnati and Columbus can have a bitter rivalry, why not Central Texas? MLS has already shown you don't need a downtown stadium in Austin why not just build up Toyota Stadium which is already built with expansion in mind? It most likely won't happen, but it'd be a good way to build those bridges they torched over the last few years. 

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TBGKon

TBGKon

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

If they even take the field, you know that their ““““temporary”””” stadium in Fort Lauderdale is going to quietly become permanent after Miami shoots down his stadium again.

...and of course the Lauderdale stadium has legal issues now too...

 

Competing Group Sues Fort Lauderdale, Inter Miami CF Over Lockhart Stadium Deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maroon

Maroon

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

You just need a better ownership group than last time.  MLS has been trying to help, but like the NFL the leagues can only do so much.  I would make sure that Dave Peacock is kept far, far away from it; he screws everything up.

 

I think the current ownership group that St. Louis is rolling with a vastly superior. Not only would they be the first majority female ownership group in MLS (which isn't important for financial stability necessarily but is good for image and a strong bid), but it's also the family associated with Enterprise Rent-A-Car. They definitely have the money to pull this off. And even better, although there are certainly tax incentives that they're asking for, they're planning on funding the stadium privately and without additional taxes. The former only requires legislative approval, whereas in Missouri any tax increase goes to the vote of the people. So even though St. Louis is one of the few areas of the state willing to increase their taxes, they have NOT been willing to do so for the profit of sports franchises. That was really the biggest hangup for the last MLS bid.

I don't disagree on Peacock, but not because he failed to get the Rams to stay. The NFL had already decided the Rams were moving regardless of what St. Louis did. If anything, Peacock's failure was that had his plan actually worked the city would have been mired in so much public debt that it would have been disastrous.

MZnWkGU.png

StL Cardinals - Indy Colts - Indiana Pacers - Let's Go Blues! - Missouri State Bears - IU Hoosiers - St Louis City SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gothamite

Gothamite

Posted
  • Author
Posted
31 minutes ago, Maroon said:

I think the current ownership group that St. Louis is rolling with a vastly superior. 

 

Well, it would almost have to be.  Your last billionaire walked away in a huff after being denied pocket change in public money.  😛 

 

31 minutes ago, Maroon said:

I don't disagree on Peacock, but not because he failed to get the Rams to stay. The NFL had already decided the Rams were moving regardless of what St. Louis did. If anything, Peacock's failure was that had his plan actually worked the city would have been mired in so much public debt that it would have been disastrous.

 

On the contrary, the NFL actively worked to prevent Kroenke from leaving St. Louis.  The Commissioner personally intervened on at least two occasions that we know about, once when he forced the Rams to stay an extra year, giving the city twelve extra months to put a plan together, and the second when he worked with the city behind the scenes to influence the process.  And with all that, Peacock's group still failed.  I do put a lot of that on him, and when you add the epic fail of his MLS expansion bid, it doesn't make him look very good.

The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maroon

Maroon

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Well, it would almost have to be.  Your last billionaire walked away in a huff after being denied pocket change in public money.  😛 

 

 

On the contrary, the NFL actively worked to prevent Kroenke from leaving St. Louis.  The Commissioner personally intervened on at least two occasions that we know about, once when he forced the Rams to stay an extra year, giving the city twelve extra months to put a plan together, and the second when he worked with the city behind the scenes to influence the process.  And with all that, Peacock's group still failed.  I do put a lot of that on him, and when you add the epic fail of his MLS expansion bid, it doesn't make him look very good.

 

Except that the stadium plan put together in St. Louis actually was a perfectly viable plan. A $1.1 billion stadium was on the table that had the backing in place and secured, and it was rejected. In fact, the Commissioner was so supportive that the reason he rejected the St. Louis plan was because it asked for $300 mil from the NFL, which the Commissioner said couldn't happen, and then later that exact amount of money was offered to Oakland and San Diego (source: http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/19151732/why-st-louis-win-lawsuit-stan-kroenke).

I'm not a Rams fan. I wasn't a Rams fan when they were in St. Louis. But I love the city of St. Louis, and the Rams were completely disingenuous in their "negotiations" and never for a moment planned on staying in Missouri or were open to that possibility. Kroenke had decided to move to LA, and the NFL backed that decision. I don't even think that it was a bad move for the NFL. I don't blame LA. After all, the Rams were there before they were in St. Louis. But St. Louis absolutely got screwed, and that's exactly why they're going to walk away from their lawsuit against Kroenke with a big chunk of change.

MZnWkGU.png

StL Cardinals - Indy Colts - Indiana Pacers - Let's Go Blues! - Missouri State Bears - IU Hoosiers - St Louis City SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dilbert

Dilbert

Posted
Posted

Lets be real. Miami is supposed to begin play next season and their temporary stadium in Fort Lauderdale likely wont even be ready. Lockhart in its current state isnt even usuable.

Signature intentionally left blank

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimalCookie

PrimalCookie

Posted
Posted

Why is it that NYCFC and Miami get to just completely bypass the most important “rule” to getting an expansion team - needing a stadium ready? New York’s two-year temporary stay has gradually become five, and they still don’t have a deal even being voted on (at least, that’s what I’ve heard - if a New Yorker has some insight on how their search is going, that’d be good to hear). Miami can’t even get their temporary stadium built. MLS is basically saying “You need all of these things, but the most important thing is a stadium. Unless it’s not the most important thing. Then you don’t need it”. It doesn’t make sense.

ExJworW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDAWG

GDAWG

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Why is it that NYCFC and Miami get to just completely bypass the most important “rule” to getting an expansion team - needing a stadium ready? New York’s two-year temporary stay has gradually become five, and they still don’t have a deal even being voted on (at least, that’s what I’ve heard - if a New Yorker has some insight on how their search is going, that’d be good to hear). Miami can’t even get their temporary stadium built. MLS is basically saying “You need all of these things, but the most important thing is a stadium. Unless it’s not the most important thing. Then you don’t need it”. It doesn’t make sense.

 

NYCFC is run by Man City and the New York Yankees.  Miami has David Beckham.  That is mainly why both teams are in MLS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gothamite

Gothamite

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Why is it that NYCFC and Miami get to just completely bypass the most important “rule” to getting an expansion team - needing a stadium ready?

 

Because that’s actually not the rule.

 

The rule is that teams must have a stadium that their owners control.  That’s how we have MLS clubs in NFL stadiums, because those NFL owners are part of the MLS ownership group.

 

Ford Field was not an option for a Detroit MLS club, until the Fords themselves joined the ownership group.  Similarly, Yankee Stadium wouldn’t have been considered until the Yanks came in.  Once they did, the Bronx became an option.

The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dfwabel

dfwabel

Posted
Posted
Quote

MLS is taking another step toward integrating itself with the rest of the football world, in large part to avoid being taking advantage of by it.

 

MLS isn’t a charity, and so Thursday evening the league announced that its teams finally will start observing FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, thus participating more meaningfully in the global transfer market. Those regulations apply only to international moves—there is still no mechanism for compensation within the USA or Canada (that’s up to the respective national federations, not FIFA). But from Thursday on, when a player who spent time in an MLS academy signs his first pro contract with a foreign club, or when a former academy player is transferred, the MLS team will pursue the compensation to which it is legally entitled.

 

Why now? Because of that growing list of academy products spurning MLS contracts for offers from foreign clubs. A problem that wasn’t contemplated before could mushroom into a disincentive for MLS owners to continue funding academies.

 

Credit: https://www.si.com/soccer/2019/04/18/mls-academies-training-compensation-solidarity-fifa-rules
Players Association's response:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDAWG

GDAWG

Posted
Posted

It's the year 2050 and MLS is at 40 teams, the league has welcomed Sacramento, St. Louis, Phoenix, Detroit, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Louisville, Las Vegas among it's expansion teams and all of them have played.....meanwhile in Miami David Beckham's children and grandchildren have taken over Inter Miami CF, but Inter Miami CF has never played in MLS because they have not resolved their stadium issues in the last 30 years, causing numerous delays in their actual debut.  The new ownership group has officially decided to move the team to Mars, joining the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland A's as the only pro sports teams on the red planet after human colonization.  Unfortunately, all three teams run into the same stadium issues on Mars as they did on Earth, forcing all three teams to look elsewhere for new stadiums.  This journey takes 1,000 years to complete but after 1,000 years, all three teams fail to find a stadium anywhere but their searches continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SFGiants58

SFGiants58

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Because that’s actually not the rule.

 

The rule is that teams must have a stadium that their owners control.  That’s how we have MLS clubs in NFL stadiums, because those NFL owners are part of the MLS ownership group.

 

Ford Field was not an option for a Detroit MLS club, until the Fords themselves joined the ownership group.  Similarly, Yankee Stadium wouldn’t have been considered until the Yanks came in.  Once they did, the Bronx became an option.

 

Somebody should ring up the Marlins. Heck, had Jorge Mas bought the Marlins, I'm sure Inter Miami would have been drawing better than the Marlins in the same venue!

MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DG_ThenNowForever

DG_ThenNowForever

Posted
Posted

I want that Miami team since their logo is so sweet. And the idea of Ronaldo playing there is quite exciting.

 

On the other hand, Seattle already introduced pink to the league, so really what's the point?

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dfwabel

dfwabel

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

I want that Miami team since their logo is so sweet. And the idea of Ronaldo playing there is quite exciting.

 

On the other hand, Seattle already introduced pink to the league, so really what's the point?

 

You actually think he's gonna step foot on US soil anytime soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept