Gothamite

North American Pro Soccer 2019

Recommended Posts

I know East Bay has been looking to build in Concord. DVC is just in the town adjacent, Pleasant Hill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

East Bay has to be feeling some pressure with Oakland Roots having such a positive launch (arguably the only one in NISA).

 

The people who are in charge of Oakland Roots have a VERY good financial situation, too. I know someone was offered a pretty big position with them and he countered by throwing out a pretty unreasonable initial offer in terms of salary (It was an offer that he expected them laugh off the money was so good). They didn’t just match it, they offered him 10% more 😳

 

That Fresno information is interesting because basically half of their current staff came from our club. I know quite a few of them who would be absolutely chomping at the bit to get the hell out of the Central Valley and in with a Bay Area club that’s in the same league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile USL Championship Swope Park Rangers will become, Sporting Kansas City II next year. Makes sense since they dont even play in Swope Park anymore but at least they had a seperate identity from their parent club. I hate these 2, II, B clubs.

 

EFvowYMX0AESXzm?format=jpg&name=small

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

East Bay has to be feeling some pressure with Oakland Roots having such a positive launch (arguably the only one in NISA).

The franchisee for East Bay, Mark Hall, also holds a franchise right for USL in Oakland as well and put his own plan for the Coliseum site if the A's actually go to the Howard Terminal. The land which Hall desires in Concord isn't city property, it's controlled by BART.

From January: http://pioneerpublishers.com/PPublishers/concord-moves-forward-with-feasibility-study-for-­downtown-stadium-and-housing-project/

Edited by dfwabel
Link added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

Meanwhile USL Championship Swope Park Rangers will become, Sporting Kansas City II next year. Makes sense since they dont even play in Swope Park anymore but at least they had a seperate identity from their parent club. I hate these 2, II, B clubs.

 

EFvowYMX0AESXzm?format=jpg&name=small

 

Im kind of the opposite being in a USL city. I can’t wait to see the San Diego USL side playing MLS lite teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

The people who are in charge of Oakland Roots have a VERY good financial situation, too. I know someone was offered a pretty big position with them and he countered by throwing out a pretty unreasonable initial offer in terms of salary (It was an offer that he expected them laugh off the money was so good). They didn’t just match it, they offered him 10% more 😳

 

That Fresno information is interesting because basically half of their current staff came from our club. I know quite a few of them who would be absolutely chomping at the bit to get the hell out of the Central Valley and in with a Bay Area club that’s in the same league. 

 

I mean it shows. Of all the NISA teams they’re the only one to get not just consistently great crowds for NISA, but actually great crowds objectively. Oakland seems to really be embracing them. I’ve actually talked to a few Earthquakes fans who are annoyed with their success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Im kind of the opposite being in a USL city. I can’t wait to see the San Diego USL side playing MLS lite teams.

I dont mind the teams. I just dont like the slapping a 2 or II or b to the MLS club branding. The two teams definitely helped create rivalries for FCC when they joined MLS, mostly with New York RedBulls and Red Bulls II as well as Toronto FC and TFC II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dilbert said:

Meanwhile USL Championship Swope Park Rangers will become, Sporting Kansas City II next year. Makes sense since they dont even play in Swope Park anymore but at least they had a seperate identity from their parent club. I hate these 2, II, B clubs.

 

EFvowYMX0AESXzm?format=jpg&name=small

 

I absolutely HATE this move. USL has been trying to get away from the II designation teams in the top level for awhile now, and they've been trying to bump the II teams down to USL 1. I can't see SPR (One of my favorite identities in our league, BTW) dropping down a level just to fit this criteria. Swope Park is consistently one of the better sides in the USL. In fact, it would be a shame to see the II teams drop down rather than just rebrand because they consistently provide us with the best competition. 

 

Even working in the league, I still don't really get what the top level clubs are trying to do with these II teams. As far as I know, they don't even sell tickets for their home matches, and they usually play at their MLS team's training grounds. I could understand it if this was a lower tier, but those II "training" teams are still mostly better than the majority of USL Championship sides. As of now, it's not really an ideal setup if you ask me. Trying to mix and match "feeder" teams with independent clubs in the top level makes the league structure a bit confusing for casual fans to follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Even working in the league, I still don't really get what the top level clubs are trying to do with these II teams. As far as I know, they don't even sell tickets for their home matches, and they usually play at their MLS team's training grounds.

Philly was trying to put their II team, Bethlehem Steel FC, in the Lehigh Valley and did in fact sell tickets. They're only playing in Chester this year because USL won't let them play a full season in Bethlehem at a stadium that doesn't have lights.

Share this post


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

Philly was trying to put their II team, Bethlehem Steel FC, in the Lehigh Valley and did in fact sell tickets. They're only playing in Chester this year because USL won't let them play a full season in Bethlehem at a stadium that doesn't have lights.

 

As far as I can tell, any team that has a team name that isn't [Insert MLS team here] II (Other than Real Salt Lake, who uses the Monarchs as their II team name) is considered independent, and does have their own fanbase. All of the official II teams are "feeder" teams, though. Not sure how Seattle is doing it this year with Tacoma Defiance, but they played in their empty training facility for matches. We upset Real Monarchs (RSL's feeder team) a few years ago when they were the top seed in the west, and that was absolutely played in an empty stadium. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

As far as I can tell, any team that has a team name that isn't [Insert MLS team here] II (Other than Real Salt Lake, who uses the Monarchs as their II team name) is considered independent, and does have their own fanbase. All of the official II teams are "feeder" teams, though. Not sure how Seattle is doing it this year with Tacoma Defiance, but they played in their empty training facility for matches. We upset Real Monarchs (RSL's feeder team) a few years ago when they were the top seed in the west, and that was absolutely played in an empty stadium. 

 

Okay, here's the easy way to tell if they're independent. Do they play in the Open Cup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, willmorris said:

Okay, here's the easy way to tell if they're independent. Do they play in the Open Cup?

 

That's a good point, actually. I never even thought of it that way.

 

But my ultimate point is, having the dependent II teams in the top league of tier II is a mistake IMO. I get why they do it, as the lower levels of soccer in this country still need time to develop, but eventually they should probably shift away from that model for the good of the league. Having a lot of the best players in your league tied to a particular MLS club, and not being able to generate revenue from them in the form of ticket sales and marketing and such, definitely hampers some of the ability the league is going to have to grow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bucfan56 said:

But my ultimate point is, having the dependent II teams in the top league of tier II is a mistake IMO. I get why they do it, as the lower levels of soccer in this country still need time to develop, but eventually they should probably shift away from that model for the good of the league. 

Yeah, but they tried the other model - it was called the MLS Reserve League - and that was a lot worse. This one probably helps the MLS 2 teams more than a dedicated reserve league would. Besides, we look at Germany and Spain, just as examples, where "2" teams are in the regular pyramid (they just can't get promoted above a certain point.)

Share this post


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

Okay, here's the easy way to tell if they're independent. Do they play in the Open Cup?

 The II teams do not play in the Open Cup.

The II teams are:

Tacoma Defiance (who shed the Seattle Sounders 2 name after last season)

Portland Timbers 2

Real Monarchs SLC

Atlanta United 2

Loudon United FC

New York Red Bulls II

LA Galaxy II

Bethlehem Steel FC

Swope Park Rangers (becoming Sporing Kansas City II)

Rio Grande Valley FC Toros (hybrid affiliation. The team has seperate owners who are responsible for operations and day to day management, but the Houston Dynamo are responsible for the players, coaching staff, and soccer operations)

 

and in USL League One

North Texas SC

Orlando City B

Toronto FC II (Canadian teams dont compete in the US Open Cup, but TFCII does not participate in the Canadian Championship)

FC Tucson (owned by USL Championship Phoenix Rising)

 

Ive heard rumors of some moving down to League One but not all. Ive heard rumors of New England possibly starting a team for next year and Cincinnati starting a team once the new stadium is completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talk that the Sacramento bid was going to keep Republic as the II team and go with Sacramento United/Sacramento FC/Something else equally stupid, but fans nearly rioted and that tune changed fast. 

 

Instead, there's talk that Sacramento's II team (If this whole thing ever gets settled) will be Reno 1868 FC (Gross), which is weird because they're a pretty big rival of Sac Republic and the fanbases absolutely HATE each other. I can't think of another situation where a rival team became an affiliate. Considering how much trash their fans talk and how much I hate them, it's pretty hysterical to think that we'll be in control of their roster and operations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

There has been talk that the Sacramento bid was going to keep Republic as the II team and go with Sacramento United/Sacramento FC/Something else equally stupid, but fans nearly rioted and that tune changed fast. 

 

Instead, there's talk that Sacramento's II team (If this whole thing ever gets settled) will be Reno 1868 FC (Gross), which is weird because they're a pretty big rival of Sac Republic and the fanbases absolutely HATE each other. I can't think of another situation where a rival team became an affiliate. Considering how much trash their fans talk and how much I hate them, it's pretty hysterical to think that we'll be in control of their roster and operations. 

 

I wonder if there would be a backlash by the Reno supporters (i.e., attendance dropping) if their club became affiliated with their biggest rival? Would they be that petty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

There has been talk that the Sacramento bid was going to keep Republic as the II team and go with Sacramento United/Sacramento FC/Something else equally stupid, but fans nearly rioted and that tune changed fast. 

 

Instead, there's talk that Sacramento's II team (If this whole thing ever gets settled) will be Reno 1868 FC (Gross), which is weird because they're a pretty big rival of Sac Republic and the fanbases absolutely HATE each other. I can't think of another situation where a rival team became an affiliate. Considering how much trash their fans talk and how much I hate them, it's pretty hysterical to think that we'll be in control of their roster and operations. 

I think the assumption so far here in St. Louis is that Saint Louis F.C. will remain as the new MLS franchise's affiliated USL club, but I haven't seen anything definitive from the MLS owners other than a statement that the STLFC club is not being promoted to MLS. It makes a degree of sense considering its principal owner, Jim Kavanaugh, is part of the MLS ownership group. But nothing seems to have been uttered publicly so far, at least as far as I've seen.

 

I completely understand the conundrum with these 2 teams. I know it's worked well for Portland to have a feeder team in its backyard to supplement its bench and give its developing players more time on the pitch in a competitive match without sending them on loan deals. But it's exceedingly difficult to build any sort of fan interest in those clubs when you have the parent club in the same proximity, if not the same exact facility. I lived in Portland for most of the MLS Timbers' existence and never once made it up to Merlo Field at the University of Portland. Thought about it, but it never rose to the level of intrigue that led to me laying out cash for tickets.

 

That creates some bad optics for a league that otherwise is going through a rather impressive growth spurt. The high energy fan bases in new independent markets like Albuquerque are a stark contrast from the empty crowds at the MLS 2 clubs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

There has been talk that the Sacramento bid was going to keep Republic as the II team and go with Sacramento United/Sacramento FC/Something else equally stupid, but fans nearly rioted and that tune changed fast. 

 

Hasnt MLS already said that no more teams will become United. We already have three. Either way glad Sacramento is sticking with the Republic. Its an awesome and unique name that works.

 

6 hours ago, Wings said:

Instead, there's talk that Sacramento's II team (If this whole thing ever gets settled) will be Reno 1868 FC (Gross), which is weird because they're a pretty big rival of Sac Republic and the fanbases absolutely HATE each other.

I had heard talks of FC Cincinnati possibly affiliating for next season before starting their own 2 team once the new stadium opens. (They are also looking at a NWSL club but Louisville is also interested) When we first moved up some fans thought we would affiliate with Louisville, as Indy is with Chicago. I honestly would be okay with it dispite are rivalry, plus I have seen some Louisville fans make the trip to Cincy for games (outside of the Open Cup match). We already loaned a rookie goalkeeper to them for the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.