Gian-Luca Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Seems like San Jose is likely to move to Houston, while Kansas City will stay. Have to wonder if this makes a move for him to Toronto in 2007 a little more likely as a result. Quakes stadium deal collapses CHANCES OF SOCCER TEAM STAYING IN SAN JOSE DWINDLE By Barry Witt Mercury News San Jose's attempts to keep the Earthquakes in town have collapsed, officials announced Monday, leaving the team's fate unknown with a Thursday deadline looming for a decision on where the team will play next year. In a memo to the city council released late Monday, Assistant City Manager Mark Linder said negotiators ``were not able to reach an agreement that made fiscal sense for'' the city and owners of the San Jose Sharks, who had indicated they would buy the soccer team if they could get a deal for a new stadium. Anschutz Entertainment Group, the soccer team's current owner, has said it would not run the Earthquakes in 2006 and threatened to move the team to Houston. Major League Soccer Commissioner Don Garber set a Dec. 15 deadline for ``a final decision on the location of the team.'' Garber and Sharks President Greg Jamison did not respond to requests for comment Monday. An Anschutz spokesman said he had no information on the team's status. Although Mayor Ron Gonzales told Anschutz officials in 2004 that he was interested only in helping to refurbish Spartan Stadium -- not paying for a new soccer stadium -- he reversed course last month after the league set its deadline. Under the guidance of Gonzales aide Joe Guerra, city officials opened talks with the Sharks on a new stadium. They brought the outlines of a deal -- which included a new stadium to be partially located on the city's fire department training site at Park Avenue and South Montgomery Street -- to a closed-door city council meeting two weeks ago. City officials emerged from that session saying they would make the deal public by today. Encouraged by that statement, about 200 Earthquakes fans rallied at last week's city council meeting in support of a deal. Instead, officials issued their brief memo Monday saying the deal had died. Some observers had said the site -- including property just to the north that San Jose is trying to acquire in hopes of luring the Oakland A's -- is not large enough to accommodate facilities for both soccer and baseball. Linder's memo said the Sharks wanted public help financing a new stadium and assistance covering operating losses until a new stadium was built. The memo included no specifics on how much public assistance the Sharks wanted. One council member, Dave Cortese, said he could not support public subsidies for the team's operations. Under a city ordinance, San Jose can spend money on a sports stadium only after receiving voter approval. Guerra and other officials directly involved in the Earthquakes talks did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for Gonzales said he didn't know what the city had offered the Sharks or what the Sharks were seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 G-L: Why do you think KC will stay? Are they getting a new stadium after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Sorry, should have mentioned as its not in the article I posed, but it was announced today in a press conference in KC that they are staying for 2006 at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Do we really want to join a league that encourages American versions of Milton Keynes Dons? "Memphis Grizzlies"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Keay Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army Do we really want to join a league that encourages American versions of Milton Keynes Dons? "Memphis Grizzlies"... Welcome to professional sports in North America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analyst Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Wouldn't it be nice if the Whitecaps took over the San Jose franchise and moved it to Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is a huge blow for MLS. Here you have a 2 time champion, and a team they re-branded to honour the history of the NASL team. And now they're bailing. That leaves the 2 California teams and there's no guarantee Houston will have a new stadium, or even be a successful market. The other sad part, is that if the Whitecaps do go MLS, they'll have one less of those old traditional rivals. Is Spartan Stadium really that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer Is Spartan Stadium really that bad? No, and yes. As a stadium it may be fine but as an MLS stadium it is useless. The whole deal with SSS (Soccer Specific Stadiums) is that they are appropriately sized and ALL revenue streams contribute to the team. Spartan stadium is probably too big (they are paying for empty seats and it is harder to create demand for tickets when there are so many empty seats.) As well, they probably pay rent to use Spartan while a new SSS would mean they keep the rental fees themselves AND make a profit on food, beverages, parking etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Not sure if this is really a "huge blow" for MLS. Its not like the team is folding. It never looks good when it happens, but every league transfers teams. The NHL (with two-time champions of their own) is about to do it again, the NFL has done it, MLB has done it, NBA has done it....none of those leagues appear in danger of collapsing, and with expansion on the horizon for MLS I'd say the same thing about this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Still, moving teams is a horrible North American practice which I hoped MLS would be spared. I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer This is a huge blow for MLS. Here you have a 2 time champion, and a team they re-branded to honour the history of the NASL team. And now they're bailing. That leaves the 2 California teams and there's no guarantee Houston will have a new stadium, or even be a successful market. The other sad part, is that if the Whitecaps do go MLS, they'll have one less of those old traditional rivals. Is Spartan Stadium really that bad? Well Spartan Stadium is to the MLS what Foothills Athletic Park was to the A-League / USL Div 1. I don't think that was the major issue though. The Anschutz group wanted out and only Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment wanted in, on the condition that the city would pony up some breaks on SSS construction. Didn't happen so SVSE are out apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Not sure if this is really a "huge blow" for MLS. Its not like the team is folding. It never looks good when it happens, but every league transfers teams. The NHL (with two-time champions of their own) is about to do it again, the NFL has done it, MLB has done it, NBA has done it....none of those leagues appear in danger of collapsing, and with expansion on the horizon for MLS I'd say the same thing about this league. Are you honestly comparing MLS with MLB, the NBA, the NHL and the NFL? Give your head a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer This is a huge blow for MLS. Here you have a 2 time champion, and a team they re-branded to honour the history of the NASL team. And now they're bailing. That leaves the 2 California teams and there's no guarantee Houston will have a new stadium, or even be a successful market. Two teams in LA. One of whom, Chivas USA, isn't drawing the fans their hoping for. No plans for a Houston SSS if there ever were plans. quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer The other sad part, is that if the Whitecaps do go MLS, they'll have one less of those old traditional rivals. Is Spartan Stadium really that bad? Built in the 1930's and falling apart. San Jose State is charging millions in rent while their football program is so badly support that the NCAA may force it out of top division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Not sure if this is really a "huge blow" for MLS. Its not like the team is folding. It never looks good when it happens, but every league transfers teams. The NHL (with two-time champions of their own) is about to do it again, the NFL has done it, MLB has done it, NBA has done it....none of those leagues appear in danger of collapsing, and with expansion on the horizon for MLS I'd say the same thing about this league. ya, G-L, but most of those leagues have been establish for so long. I know the KC Scouts, Cleveland Barons and Oakland Seals existed and moved in the NHL, but the league was well established as the 3rd or 4th sport in America and undoubtably the most popular here! So, Those leagues wernt tarnished because there were already a massive ampount of fans... and MLS, dosent have the amount of fans as other NA pro sports. MLS is still relativly young, and too have a team re-locate and perhaps two after two folded (or whatever) is not the greatest thing. I dont know much about American football and Baseball so I can't speak for those leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 quote:Originally posted by zacRWE ya, G-L, but most of those leagues have been establish for so long. I know the KC Scouts, Cleveland Barons and Oakland Seals existed and moved in the NHL, but the league was well established as the 3rd or 4th sport in America and undoubtably the most popular here! So, Those leagues wernt tarnished because there were already a massive ampount of fans... and MLS, dosent have the amount of fans as other NA pro sports. MLS is still relativly young, and too have a team re-locate and perhaps two after two folded (or whatever) is not the greatest thing. I dont know much about American football and Baseball so I can't speak for those leagues. The most successful sports league in the world, the NFL, has survived quite nicely. The NBA has also had a few franchise moves. If San Jose moves somewhere where they are well supported and get a SSS built, the league will be stronger as a result. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanKeay Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Hey cant go wrong with the MK Dons!!!!!! Long live IZZZZY!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 14, 2005 Author Share Posted December 14, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer Are you honestly comparing MLS with MLB, the NBA, the NHL and the NFL? Give your head a shake. What North American pro leagues would you prefer me to compare the MLS to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Moving teams around kills tradition and fan loyalty. Franchising of clubs is the thing I hate most about North American sports. It's what turned me off baseball, when Vancouver Canadians moved to Sacremento. One of the reasons I moved to soccer is because they don't do franchising, and they don't even do farm teams. That's the way it should be. As long as rich dickheads get to choose where new clubs go, rather than actual demand and suitable facilities, MLS will remain a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army Moving teams around kills tradition and fan loyalty. Franchising of clubs is the thing I hate most about North American sports. It's what turned me off baseball, when Vancouver Canadians moved to Sacremento. One of the reasons I moved to soccer is because they don't do franchising, and they don't even do farm teams. That's the way it should be. As long as rich dickheads get to choose where new clubs go, rather than actual demand and suitable facilities, MLS will remain a farce. Aren't the owners of a team just trying to find a place where they can make money? Doesn't, then, profitability become the crucial determinant on where to locate? Isn't profitiability, in sport, largely based on ticket sales (demand) and efficiency of your operation in a suitable facility? So aren't those owners, who you choose to call names, just doing exactly as you ask? Letting demand and suitable facilities determine where they should locate their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca What North American pro leagues would you prefer me to compare the MLS to? How about the USFL, the X-FL, the NASL and the Under 6 foot basketball league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 Well I'd the MLS has far more in common with the leagues I mentioned than the ones you did (most of which are attempts to challenge an existing major league in the same sport.The exception of the NASL simply because it was the previous version of the MLS. The MLS of course has worked hard to ensure they didn't repeat the same mistakes as that league, so the comparison there is dubious as well. I'm surprised you didn't mention the WHA while you were at it. MLS contracted by two teams a few years ago. That wasn't a huge blow since they subsequently expanded in 2005 & will again in 2007. If contraction of a couple of teams wasn't a huge blow to the league, how can the relocation of a franchise for superior stadium reasons be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 The leagues I mentioned were fledgling start-up leagues...which is what MLS was (and many feel still is) Anytime you don't have stability...you should be concerned. No league wants to keep rebranding or re-locating its teams. KC is committed for 2006, but after that...what? Is Houston going to be a bonafide MLS city? They haven't been in the past...and they don't have a SSS and aren't planning on building one. If you want to seriously compare MLS with NFL (laugh) then let's imagine the Miami Dolphins and Tampa Bay Buccaneers were contracted and San Francisco was in trouble and moving somewhere else. A pretty serious calamity would have to happen for that scenario to play out...because the NFL has something the MLS doesn't have. History, stability and tradition. Which is also why the NFL will never expand to... (cough) Toronto. If you don't think Don Garber is seriously concerned about the San Jose and KC situation then you you're in serious MLS denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca What North American pro leagues would you prefer me to compare the MLS to? Arena Football. Which drew 1,744,837 in 136 games for an average attendance of 12,830. The MLS drew 2,900,716 in 193 games for an avergae attendance of 15,108. Which was a drop of 2.9 compared to 2004. But of course Arena Football has a national network deal on NBC, while MLS is on ESPN2. More people watch Arena Football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Good comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer The leagues I mentioned were fledgling start-up leagues...which is what MLS was (and many feel still is) "Was" yes. By its 11th year many would claim that this is no longer the case - how many years do you have to go before being considered "start-up" - 20? 30? 40? In comparison the XFL lasted less than a season, the USFL, what, 3 years. And who has even heard of the midget basketball league? If it lasted 12 years at even a mid-level profile, its news to me. The NASL was not a fledgling start up league in comparison to those, and neither is the MLS, which is moving into its 11th season and will be in its 12th by the time Toronto comes in. The XFL & USFL etc. are in the same boat as the WHA, the ABA and the other rival sporting leagues that tried to compete with the main professional leagues of those particular sports. That's why they were seen as being precarious ventures & why they turned out the way they did (they either died or merged their leftovers). That isn't the case in the MLS, which is the major league for its professional sport in North America. As such by that alone it has more in common with the other major leagues, where relocation hasn't hurt. Obviously the MLS aren't at the exact same level as the big four. No one was ever claiming that was the case. quote: Anytime you don't have stability...you should be concerned. Of course they are going to be concerned about a relocation - that's why they are making the move, they want a better financial deal elsewhere. No one was disputing that. That isn't what was claimed though - what was claimed was this was a "major blow" to the league. I'm still waiting for a demonstration of how that is the case when the league when contraction turned out not to be. Calling it a "major blow" is what is being disputed as that makes it sounds like the league is in major trouble for its survival. That does not appear to be the case, with more expansion on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.