Jump to content

Garber to Whitecaps: No Stadium...No MLS


Recommended Posts

As the Seattle Sounders announced they'll be joining Major league soccer in 2009, MLS commissioner Don Garber had a very clear message for soccer fans in Vancouver: No Stadium. No MLS.

According to the Vancouver Sun, Garber is quoted as saying "...we are unable to make any commitments to Vancouver....We would give priority to the cities that have proper stadiums and the right business plans. Vancouver can only get into that mix with a proper stadium."

Don Garber had much to say about MLS expansion and the Stadium situation in Vancouver. You can read the article here:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4db679a1-f503-4b12-95ec-6b7605145e46&k=42608

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Garber's comments are also the strongest indication yet that Montreal is now a serious candidate. A year ago it looked like Vancouver was going to be the next Canadian team and now it seems like it will be Montreal. Vancouverites can completely blame city hall for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not news for the Whitecaps either. Lennarduzzi has been saying for a long time now that any discussion about them moving to MLS is moot till they have a stadium. In fact it has only been quite rcently that he has been willing to even talk about it to the media. Previously he would just brush off questions about MLS with a statement that the club was committed to the USL for the foreseeable future, what else could he say anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garber was responding to reporters' questions about Vancouver.

Gotta say, I had a good laugh over Terry Bell's piece in The Province this morning:

"Of course, there's a stray cat living in an alley near that stadium site, a beast that could be deeply traumatized by the arrival of 20,000 soccer fans. A focus group is now trying to catch the cat to determine if it's in favour of a stadium or opposed."

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=f6775178-1a78-492d-b177-0d4f4ecd1712

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

On the other side, it does seem that Montreal is getting mentioned more and more prominently in these expansion talks, so that's a good sign at least.

You bet. I really wonder what the heck we would do with a brand new stadium in a crumbling low level league. Worst case scenario, Montreal doesn't make it to MLS. What's next? We go back to the USL with Seattle departing, Portland and Vancouver looking to get out asap and the Impact openly saying for months it was going the MLS way. How good would that look?

There's no turning back for the Impact now. People in Montreal are not stupid, Saputo has been waving the MLS flag at them for a while now and they will not settle for anything less.

It's MLS or bust, nothing less. 2010 is a clear possibility, but 2009 is not out of the question, if you ask me. (Yes, I know about that exclusivity deal...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally agree that Vancouver should have a stadium in place before being granted a team. This being said, the fact that they will put a team back in San Jose which had very poor support and no shovel in the ground on a new facility, and then into Seattle in Qwest field which seats 72,000 brings into question Garber's management skills. Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot see 25,000 filled seats looking good in a 72,000 seat stadium. Personally, I think these are very poor decisions. And frankly, these are not even crucial markets like Philadelphia for example. It would have been better to not expand, stick at 13 teams, and wait for proper ownership groups, in proper stadiums, in locations that fit strategically with the vision of the MLS moving forward. These decisions will simply result in failed franchises, teams moving, and a poorer overall support as they undermine the overall buzz of the league playing to half empty stadiums. Better to have 10 Torontos, than 20 Kansas Cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Garber's press conference yesterday and he basically admitted that this goes against the grain of requiring an SSS however he said the most important aspect is that the stadium is in a prime downtown location, is owned by the team (control all revenue streams), and was built with soccer in mind. I'd be ok with it as long as it was grass. I know it rains a lot in the Northwest but maybe they could install the Grassmaster system like at Invesco Field or the Emirates Stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by gwallace76

So Garber states a minimum 18,000 seat stadium, what does the current Whitecaps planned stadium accomodate?

Good point to be made for both Vancouver and Montreal, although i think that Stade Saputo can be eventually expanded to 17 000. On a random thought, will the impacts continue to be non-profit if they join the MLS? While the idea of non profitability is nice, is it the best option? Personnaly speaking, it would be great to see George Gillette involved with the impact. Not only does he have a presence in Montreal with his ownership of the Canadians, but he also partly owns liverpool....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Impact probably will restructure if they join the MLS.

Stade Saputo can be expanded to 17,000 quickly (probably in less than 3 months, judging by how quickly the stands went up at the new stadium).

But you know, Garber says this, Garber says that, Vancouver needs a stadium or won't join, but neither SJ or Seattle have plans for a SSS. Garber also said the minimum seating required was 20,000, now it's 18,000... but KC and SJ will play in smaller venues next season (10,000-12,000 roughly).

So you know... I think that as long as you can put the money on the table, and present a solid organization with a decent stadium, you have a good chance to make it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

So you know... I think that as long as you can put the money on the table, and present a solid organization with a decent stadium, you have a good chance to make it. :)

The sooner the better. I would find it rather amusing if Montreal became the next franchise after Seattle. I think they should because they have all the necessary tools to do so. Philly and St. Louis maybe but, only after Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think the same. When you look at what it takes to join the MLS, Montreal has everything, while the others just have plans and promises to build this or that. Montreal is ready to go and in my opinion, is a far better choice than the last two franchises awarded (especially SJ). However, it might come down to the way Saputo will be allowed to run his team. If he can find a way to keep as much control as possible, he will do it. He's not stupid, the USL is not the way to go for the Impact and he knows it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

Well, I think the same. When you look at what it takes to join the MLS, Montreal has everything, while the others just have plans and promises to build this or that. Montreal is ready to go and in my opinion, is a far better choice than the last two franchises awarded (especially SJ). However, it might come down to the way Saputo will be allowed to run his team. If he can find a way to keep as much control as possible, he will do it. He's not stupid, the USL is not the way to go for the Impact and he knows it...

Maybe Saputo is too cheap to pay that 30 million entrance fee. It would be nice to see an owner like Gilette with a lot of ambition. Not saying that Saputo isn't ambitious (the stadium provides this truth) it just doesn't seem like there is any urgency to move the team to the MLS. IMO Greg Kerfoot has much more present ambition than Saputo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Gillett was asked a question about MLS soccer at the beginning of the habs' season. He avoided it and look embarassed.

Reports say Saputo met Gillett. Now what's the deal, we don't know.

One thing is for sure, there hasn't been a better time to pay that 30 million US dollar entrance fee than right now for anyone in Canada, seeing how it's worth 8 million less than at the same time last year.

But hey, this thread is about Vancouver... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

Well, Gillett was asked a question about MLS soccer at the beginning of the habs' season. He avoided it and look embarassed.

Reports say Saputo met Gillett. Now what's the deal, we don't know.

One thing is for sure, there hasn't been a better time to pay that 30 million US dollar entrance fee than right now for anyone in Canada, seeing how it's worth 8 million less than at the same time last year.

But hey, this thread is about Vancouver... :)

Better do it while the Canadian dollar is stronger hahahaha, it would save a minimal amount but none the less!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLS is an american league and I think the considerations will always be different for American markets...things like size of television market, regional impact considerations i.e. Can now tell sponsors of a presence in the American Northwest. These are things that Vancouver or Montreal can not add to the mix to sweeten their bids. I am personally of the opinion that MLS would be happier to not expand any further into Canada and as long as their are Seattles, San Joses, Portlands, Philadelphias and the like ready to pony up, they will be preferred to a couple of Canadian cities. Indeed, the best case scenario for MLS is to have only Toronto in the League along with a bunch of viable american franchises. Things like Beckham signing are bad news for MLS coming to additional Canadian cities simply because its piques interest in American markets. And American markets is where MLS wants to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...