Puckguy14 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Say it ain't so? It's not like crowds haven't been coming out and supporting the Quakes since their existence. I mean shoot the league gave San Jose the first game back in 1996. Why would they leave if crowds are good, a winning team? Granted they need a new stadium badly, but still if it ain't broke don't fix the product? 2004 San Jose Sharks 7th Man Fan of the Year San Jose Gold Miners - 4x Lombardi Cup Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I remember Milwaukee saying they were gunna get a team but that was a time ago. Yes I remember that time. Don't quote me on this but I beleive current Wave owner Tim Krause had plans on building a MLS size stadium close to the Bradly Center. I think the idea died when the city of Milwaukee did not want to pay for it... Still, we have an A-League team, a good one too. The idea of a MLS team in Milwaukee has died for the time being though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breakwood Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I think the front runner for a MLS team is acctually Rochester, NY followed by Oklahoma City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 Well the A-League's Rochester Raging Rhinos have made no secret about their desire to move up to Major League Soccer. In fact, that's a big part of the reason that they're constructing their new 17,500-seat facility PAETEC Park. Unfortunately, though the club had initially hoped to be in the new facility by this fall, preparation of the building site has taken more time than anticipated. So, the team is shooting to be in the new facility sometime next season (which may still prove to be an ambitious goal), or in time for the 2006 season. As for a relocated team going into Rochester, unless AEG (owners of the Earthquakes) or Hunt Sports Group (owners of the Wizards) were willing to sell their respective teams, I just don't see it happening. The current owners in Rochester are very hands on, as evidenced by the work they're doing to get PAETEC Park built. Rochester's owners would want to own their team outright.As for Oklahoma City, my understanding is that while Central Oklahoma University (located in suburban Edmond, OK) has made some rudimentary preliminary improvements to their stadium, when they and MLS were unable to line-up an ownership group for a Greater Oklahoma City team, the major overhaul necessary to render the facility fit for MLS use was abandoned. There is no way that this plan would be ready in time for next season, and even 2006 might be a stretch. I don't see how a team relocating to Oklahoma City makes any difference in that regard.So, for 2005 Seattle and Salt Lake City would appear to be the front-runers to claim the second expansion slot alongside Chivas USA. As for relocation sites, I'd say that San Antonio is coming on as the front-runner for one of the rumored teams; most likely, San Jose, as their management team has reportedly had discussions with officials in that city about a potential move.Brian in Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notch Novelty Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Rochester attendance has dropped slightly. I know Rochester has been trying to become bigger than Buffalo. I do believe Chivas USA big hold up was using LA as it's home. Read that in recent SI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilTownMVP Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 St. Louis is a good soccer city. I want a team. I guess they could have their own facility in STL when the Cardinals move out of Busch, but I think for the good of MLS, they need to expand into cities where they're not in competition with baseball. Especially not in when (correct me if I'm wrong), the Cards are the favorite team in St Louis.So for my $.02, the following cities would be the best for MLS (in no paticular order):-El Paso (lots of soccer-crazy Mexicans and Chicanos... Chivas USA should've gone here)-San Antonio (see above)-Indianapolis-Portland-Louisville-Salt Lake City-Upstate NY (I'd prefer Buffalo, but Rochester is more likely. I think Syracuse could work too though.)Milwaukee would've been a good choice for MLS a couple years ago, but now that we have Major League Baseball back in town, I think we'd better stay A-League. Dubya's thoughts on "terrorist" nations: "They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notch Novelty Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Buffalo couldn't support a soccer team, we just didn't support the Blizzard enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Monaco plays in the French Lique1 mainly because the entire country fits inside New York City. All of the major leagues are subordinate to that country's soccer federation. So the Premiership is subordinate to the English Football Association and MLS is subordinate to the US Soccer Federation. Not really a reason to keep a Canadian team out of MLS unless FIFA justs says no to it. Of course it took them 40 years to allow international competitions on astroturf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.