DeRo's chances of moving to MLS TO improving?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer

Good comparison.

though completely irrelevant to the point at hand......unless it can be shown that past relocations in that league were a major blow which caused or is about to cause the death of the league. I don't know the history of the league (other than that a franchise was relocated here & then relocated elsewhere, IIRC) but it is being suggested that the league is doing very well. The example provided is either irrelevant or yet another example that proves my point.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer

because the NFL has something the MLS doesn't have. History, stability and tradition.

I know something MLS has that the NFL does not.

(Not one but) two teams in Los Angeles.

[Gian-Luca]

Well its also official that the MLS doesn't have a team in San Jose anymore, as they are moving to Houston. They are not keeping the Earthquakes name however, and FWIW Garber indicated that the MLS would like to return to San Jose as early as 2007 if a new stadium could be in place by then as the other 2007 expansion team - though Lamar Hunt indicated yesterday that the MLS will have 13 teams in 2007 with the addition of Toronto, then a 14th in 2008. And if Earl Cochrane's info (found in Rudi's article) is correct, the next round of expansion by 2010.

A shame for the fans of San Jose, who supported the team well but still have lost it, at least for the time being. That must suck. Though MLSE might have a better chance now at landing a local star for its inaugural season.

[Guest Ed]

And in the same token a blow to Vancouver and Montreal getting MLS franchises any time soon as San Jose just moved to the top of the list with Garber saying the city and other organizations are working together on that.

"We are all disappointed that the Earthquakes will not be playing in San Jose in 2006. Going back to the days of the NASL, the Earthquakes have had a storied history and passionate fan base. It is our intention to continue this soccer tradition and bring the Earthquakes back to the Bay Area with a new expansion team as early as 2007.

In fact, the City of San Jose and Major League Soccer have signed a Letter of Intent which provides a wide variety of support elements to attract a local investor for an MLS expansion team. The Earthquakes name, colors and competition records have been retained by MLS for this future expansion team.

We will work hard over the next year to bring the Earthquakes back to the Bay Area. Regular updates regarding our progress will be posted on www.mlsnet.com and we welcome your feedback at sjfeedback@mlsnet.com."

[G-Man]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Well its also official that the MLS doesn't have a team in San Jose anymore, as they are moving to Houston. They are not keeping the Earthquakes name however, and FWIW Garber indicated that the MLS would like to return to San Jose as early as 2007 if a new stadium could be in place by then as the other 2007 expansion team - though Lamar Hunt indicated yesterday that the MLS will have 13 teams in 2007 with the addition of Toronto, then a 14th in 2008. And if Earl Cochrane's info (found in Rudi's article) is correct, the next round of expansion by 2010.

A shame for the fans of San Jose, who supported the team well but still have lost it, at least for the time being. That must suck. Though MLSE might have a better chance now at landing a local star for its inaugural season.

the beginning of the slow bleed of franchises into critial care. shades of the NASL 1982. Maybe the G-L Dairy Queen Blizzards can outlive another league.

[DoyleG]

As for DeRo wither he will:

1) Stay with the team no matter where it goes and remain past 2007.

2) Gets cut and another MLS team will pick him up.

3) Goes to Europe.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

the beginning of the slow bleed of franchises into critial care. shades of the NASL 1982.

Shades of your warped imagination would be more accurate. I don't seem to recall much in the way of NASL expansion plans circa 1982.

[Calgary Boomer]

Hey GL: How many fans will the Toronto MLS team average in 2007...I'm dying to know.

[Calgary Boomer]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

"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?

You're the one comparing MLS to NFL NBA and the NHL...how long have those leagues been around?

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

the beginning of the slow bleed of franchises into critial care. shades of the NASL 1982. Maybe the G-L Dairy Queen Blizzards can outlive another league.

Are you even a soccer fan?

All I'm seeing from you is constant perverse hope that MLS dies.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer

Hey GL: How many fans will the Toronto MLS team average in 2007...I'm dying to know.

Sorry CB, he can't answer you right now. I borrowed his crystal ball and tarot cards for the weekend. [8)]

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer

Ok then lets compare apples to apples - where were the NHL, NFL and NBA at in year 11? Shifting franchises, folding franchises fighting off insolvency and very much leagues with only regional footprints.The precurser to the NFL was formed in 1920 and nver reached anywhere near it's current popularity until the 1970's and was mostly a mid-west regional league for most of that time.

The NHL consisted of 5 teams in 1917 and was an Ontario/Quebec League of the five one folded and one shut-down in the midst of the first season and finished with just three teams. 13 years later there were 10 but three of these folded by season's end and the league was still mostly a regional league and by the time of it's 25th anniversary was down to "the original six" as they came to be known.

The NBA formed in 1949 started with 17 franchises mostly in the mid-west and north-east by the end of the first season six teams were gone and was down to just eight by 1954 - also during this time a large number of franchises shifted: Tir-Cities ti Milwaukee and then St. Louis, Rochester to Cincinnati.

IMO MLS is far ahead of where the NASL was at this point and probably (again IMO) ahead of where these other leagues were at the same point. Is it a valid comparison? Although it is difficult to compare things of different eras I think it is - do I wish that there was a North Aemrican wide soccer league to rival the NFL? Yes. Is there at this point no. Will MLS reach that point in 40-50 years who knows.

I guess my main point is why are we always in such a rush? Like developing playing talent, I suspect, building a professional league in any sport takes time and patience.

[Gordon]

Interesting turn of events. San Jose will not be back in 2007 unless the owner of the A's moves his team to San Jose, and acquires an MLS franchise. That AEG is moving from San Jose to Houston where the situation is no better in terms of stadium and ownership, and is an unproven market for soccer is also interesting. It must be that the spartan stadium deal in San Jose was horrendous as AEG is claiming big loses. Now San Jose is one of the better attended MLS teams if you factor out Doubleheaders, top half of the league I'd guess without doing the math (FREX, Chicago is under 12,000 per and Chivas just above from a quick glance). It suggests that an MLS Franchise is not viable without both a SSS and the opportunity to hold well attended double headers in larger facilities. This actually, IMO, bodes well for Vancouver and Montreal should they choose to pursue this as they, by all accounts, will have both. Toronto as well, so I'd look for a doubleheader with some major european clubs in 2007. I do not know that there are large numbers of cities in the US willing to publicly finance a soccer stadium that also have access to a 50,000 seat venue to prop up the gate revenue/numbers. Perhaps bedroom communities outside of major markets might as has occured in, I think, Dallas. I assume that the SSS will have to be largely publically funded as AEG was not willing to build one in one of the better attended MLS markets (and I'd think a pretty good concert market to boot), and the owners of the SJ Sharks turned down participation in a largely publically financed stadium as the City would not guarantee the Shark's investment in the stadium should MLS fold.

I think that the notion that this is a blow to MLS is much overstated, but it does raise some questions about the financial attractiveness of the league. If a better attended team can not finance its own stadium construction and construction of an SSS is essential to survival, the league really is depending up the municipal sector to grow. If it were a sport more high profile in the US sporting culture than soccer, this might not be a bad thing. As it stands, I have a hard time seeing any significant expansion in the near future, which bodes well for Montreal and Vancouver (assuming that the league is sufficiently strong to keep operating).

[G-Man]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

The question is Bill, is the MLS based on a false economic model?

Would the NHL or NFL been around if they lost 250 million in it's first 10 years? Even in 1940 money. The answer is no.

The MLS is a sham due to fact that Mr Hunt has very very deep pockets.

As for the rush...then Toronto is the great example of a rush into a unproven market that can't even support a USL div 1 team. Montreal at the moment with a stable ownership with a proven tack record, in a city that has embraced a local product would the logical place for an MLS team. Followed by Vancouver.

Toronto is the classic set-up for failure. How long will MLSE want to play Santa Hunt?

How long before the MLS expands into Mexico cause they can't make a go of it in the US? Would the expansion into Canada happened if the league was in good shape or that all franchise were strong enough to attract decent markets state side to buy in?

like all failing businesses, when the going gets tough, you'll take anyone's money- including Canadian money.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer

You're the one comparing MLS to NFL NBA and the NHL...how long have those leagues been around?

My original point (which seems to have been lost in time) wasn't to compare the leagues as they are today, it was to point out that a relocation isn't necessarily a major blow to a professional sports league. All those leagues in the examples I used had teams that relocated or folded early and throughout their history, and yet they are still around today. Somebody else then brings up the Arena Football League as a better example to use in yet another futile attempt to try to zing me and ironically in doing so unwittingly provides a better example to strengthen my argument with, a fact which has not been countered in any way I notice. Instead you are hung up on this issue of comparing MLS as being the equivalent to the 4 major leagues, even though nobody was ever claiming they were exact comparable. You can have that debate with someone else if you like - I'm not interested.

You claimed that this relocation was a major blow to the MLS. I am still waiting for a demonstration of why this is the case, particuarly when contracting two teams didn't even turn out to be a major blow for this particular league, making it difficult for anyone looking at this objectively to see why a relocation of a franchise out of a horrendous stadium deal would be considered the equivalent of the appearance of the Grim Reaper in Don Garber's office.

[Kelly]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

My original point (which seems to have been lost in time) wasn't to compare the leagues as they are today, it was to point out that a relocation isn't necessarily a major blow to a professional sports league. All those leagues in the examples I used had teams that relocated or folded early and throughout their history, and yet they are still around today. Somebody else then brings up the Arena Football League as a better example to use in yet another futile attempt to try to zing me and ironically in doing so unwittingly provides a better example to strengthen my argument with, a fact which has not been countered in any way I notice. Instead you are hung up on this issue of comparing MLS as being the equivalent to the 4 major leagues, even though nobody was ever claiming they were exact comparable. You can have that debate with someone else if you like - I'm not interested.

You claimed that this relocation was a major blow to the MLS. I am still waiting for a demonstration of why this is the case, particularly when contracting two teams didn't even turn out to be a major blow for this particular league, making it difficult for anyone looking at this objectively to see why a relocation of a franchise out of a horrendous stadium deal would be considered the equivalent of the appearance of the Grim Reaper in Don Garber's office.

How many teams in the history of the MLS in total? 14? and unless KC turn it around, 4 will have either folded or moved. That's close to third of all franchises.

If all 14 were in good shape today, like has been said, the league wouldn't be looking to expand into a foreign country- Canada.

It's a set back from the original plan of the MLS. Which was to develop a pro AMERICAN league and not a NORTH AMERICAN league. And I consider Chivas, to be a Mexican team- aimed at the Mexican market in America. It seems the league has given up capturing the hearts of the market it was created to capture.

Suburbia.

And losing San Jose (Surburbia Bay Area- pop 12 Million)is a major blow. And exanding to Canada is confirmation of it.

Why not an American market? Cause there isn't one that doesn't have a resident rich lunatic.

As Lamur Hunt once said about how to make a million on soccer in America? well start with 10 million.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Kelly

How many team in the history of the MLS in total? 14? and unless KC turn it around 4 will have either folded or moved. That's close to third of all franchises.

If all 14 were in good shape today, like g-man has said the league wouldn't be looking to expand into a foreign country- Canada.

It's a set back from the original plan of the MLS. Which was to develop a pro AMERICAN league and not a NORTH AMERICAN league. And I consider Chivas to me a Mexican team aimed at the Mexican market in America. It seems the league has given up capturing the hearts of the market it was created to capture.

Suburbia. And losing San Jose (Surburbia Bay Area- pop 12 Million)is a major blow. And exanding to Canada is confirmation of it.

Why not an American market?

Its unfortunate for you that you would take the time to write a lengthy post that misses the point entirely. Try answering the question that's been asked if your interested in debating, which is to demonstrate how it is that this is a major blow for the MLS. How is moving to Houston, a better market than San Jose with a better stadium deal that will make the league more cash (or lose them less, same thing) spelling the death-knell of the league?

Trying to fudge the numbers so that by 2007 possibly four of the 15 to 16 teams will have folded or moved in the by-then 12 year history is irrelevant - at least to supporting your argument. You could probably provide a similar fold/relocate ratio to the NHL if you wanted, but who cares? The original plan of the MLS is also ancient history - times have moved on.

What matters is what the situation is right now and what its likely to be in the future based on the known relevant factors. The fact that the league has gone on and continues to expand and land new investors in spite of a history of the contraction of two earlier teams several years ago is not an argument that a relocation to a bigger market is a major blow. It is an argument against calling it that.

MLS wanted the San Jose market, but they wanted Houston even more (and they still might get the former again with both the Sharks & A's interested in returning a team there). Houston is a more lucractive market. Much like Toronto in that respect (to answer that question as to why they want to come Canada). You look at moving to Houston & Toronto that the league must be in serious, deadly trouble. The fact is the moves should serve to strengthen the league, not fatally wound it like the naysayers seemingly want to believe. Unless it is argued the addition of new investors & SSS throughout the league are signs that the league is about to fail someone is barking up the wrong tree. The fact is the MLS has (or is about to have) more investors & more SSS now than it ever has before. That fact is a major blow to the argument that this relocation is a major blow to the league.

Its already been reported (hardly surprisingly) that they are getting a more favorable lease at Roberston Stadium than at Spartan this move was a relatively easy business decision. The potential market alone makes Houston a more attractive place for a team. Don't be surprised if Houston does better at the gate than San Jose. Houston has a ton of folks with money - lots of kids - lots of soccer-loving Hispanics and a local government that spends money, which had proved not to be the case with San Jose thus far.

So, anyone else want to have a go?

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Its already been reported (hardly surprisingly) that they are getting a more favorable lease at Roberston Stadium than at Spartan this move was a relatively easy business decision. The potential market alone makes Houston a more attractive place for a team. Don't be surprised if Houston does better at the gate than San Jose. Houston has a ton of folks with money - lots of kids - lots of soccer-loving Hispanics and a local government that spends money, which had proved not to be the case with San Jose thus far.

So, anyone else want to have a go?

If the Hispanic soccer fan was so eager, then they should be filling HDC for Chivas games. Sadly their not.

The Hispanic market is far too overrated.

[Cheeta]

Don't know about that, but you're probably right. Chivas, realy, realy, sucked though. Didn't need to be Hispanic to see that.

Hard to judge where all this is going, these things can be pretty complicated, but I tend to be in the camp which says that if you have to leave a fairly successful market that you've spent 10 years trying to build up, in order to improve your league's possition, then maybe that sort of shows things aren't going so good eh?

Of course along those same lines (as I've been writing for a while now) if MLS understands things as they stand aren't so good and some things need to change then maybe MLS is on the right track. At least in my opinion.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

The Hispanic market is far too overrated.

Tell that to the 88,000 that showed up for Chivas vs. Club America in LA in August.

What was overrated was the Chivas brand, since a) not every Hispanic person is a Chivas fan; and the people who ran Chivas USA expected the fanbase to show up in numbers despite putting out the worst possible team they could find. I think next season they won't be making that mistake again.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Don't know about that, but you're probably right. Chivas, realy, realy, sucked though. Didn't need to be Hispanic to see that.

Even with a winning team they wouldn't be able to push that much up in attendance. Their promotion is aimed at the Hispanic community (Very little, if any, English ads) and their team composition shows that.

Interesting that the policy for luxury boxes at HDC is that a buyer would have to buy tickets for both teams. Not uncommon to find the boxes empty for Chivas games.

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Hard to judge where all this is going, these things can be pretty complicated, but I tend to be in the camp which says that if you have to leave a fairly successful market that you've spent 10 years trying to build up, in order to improve your league's possition, then maybe that sort of shows things aren't going so good eh?

Of course along those same lines (as I've been writing for a while now) if MLS understands things as they stand aren't so good and some things need to change then maybe MLS is on the right track. At least in my opinion.

What MLS is now offering is that San Jose would get an expansion team for 2007 if they can get a stadium built. That said, it seems more about rubbing salt into the wounds of San Jose fans. AEG is really comming under fire since they have shown they care more about the LA market than San Jose.

San Jose is poisoned as a market and MLS getting burned in the process.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Tell that to the 88,000 that showed up for Chivas vs. Club America in LA in August.

What was overrated was the Chivas brand, since a) not every Hispanic person is a Chivas fan; and the people who ran Chivas USA expected the fanbase to show up in numbers despite putting out the worst possible team they could find. I think next season they won't be making that mistake again.

Thank you for proving my point Rudi.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Thank you for proving my point Rudi.

If your point was that only a small percentage of Hispanics are Chivas fans, and the ones that are are used to seeing a winning team on the field, then you're welcome.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

If your point was that only a small percentage of Hispanics are Chivas fans, and the ones that are are used to seeing a winning team on the field, then you're welcome.

Nice job in avoiding reality.

[G-Man]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Its unfortunate for you that you would take the time to write a lengthy post that misses the point entirely. Try answering the question that's been asked if your interested in debating, which is to demonstrate how it is that this is a major blow for the MLS. How is moving to Houston, a better market than San Jose with a better stadium deal that will make the league more cash (or lose them less, same thing) spelling the death-knell of the league?

Trying to fudge the numbers so that by 2007 possibly four of the 15 to 16 teams will have folded or moved in the by-then 12 year history is irrelevant - at least to supporting your argument. You could probably provide a similar fold/relocate ratio to the NHL if you wanted, but who cares? The original plan of the MLS is also ancient history - times have moved on.

What matters is what the situation is right now and what its likely to be in the future based on the known relevant factors. The fact that the league has gone on and continues to expand and land new investors in spite of a history of the contraction of two earlier teams several years ago is not an argument that a relocation to a bigger market is a major blow. It is an argument against calling it that.

MLS wanted the San Jose market, but they wanted Houston even more (and they still might get the former again with both the Sharks & A's interested in returning a team there). Houston is a more lucractive market. Much like Toronto in that respect (to answer that question as to why they want to come Canada). You look at moving to Houston & Toronto that the league must be in serious, deadly trouble. The fact is the moves should serve to strengthen the league, not fatally wound it like the naysayers seemingly want to believe. Unless it is argued the addition of new investors & SSS throughout the league are signs that the league is about to fail someone is barking up the wrong tree. The fact is the MLS has (or is about to have) more investors & more SSS now than it ever has before. That fact is a major blow to the argument that this relocation is a major blow to the league.

Its already been reported (hardly surprisingly) that they are getting a more favorable lease at Roberston Stadium than at Spartan this move was a relatively easy business decision. The potential market alone makes Houston a more attractive place for a team. Don't be surprised if Houston does better at the gate than San Jose. Houston has a ton of folks with money - lots of kids - lots of soccer-loving Hispanics and a local government that spends money, which had proved not to be the case with San Jose thus far.

So, anyone else want to have a go?

Population does not make a good market. If that was the case London England would be a great place for MLB to put a team into.

Hong Kong would be a hotbed of hockey- perfect for the NHL.

San Jose is a HUGE market to lose. The Bay area population is 7 million. It's home to some very rich corporations and people.

Population does not mean market. A market is an area that wants your product.

MLS should be looking at successful soccer operators first before launching PIPE dream ventures into place that can't even support USL teams or indoor squads.

keep talking out of your ass G-L.