Montreal in MLS sooner than we think?

[youllneverwalkalone]

We're getting a street car? That looks cool. And I like the proposed location -and it is a *waterfront* stadium. On the other hand, I've been thinking that waterfront stadiums are kind of for poofs. When I lived in Manchester, part of the fun of going to Maine Road was weaving through the backstreets of Moss Side (though probably not that much fun for you United supporters). Anyway, what about all that semi-vacant land at the very beginning of Strathcona - where Gore meets Prior? I'd love to see a stadium in a more urban residential neighborhood the way they used to do it in the old country.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Look guys, about the stadium. There is a lot of denial out there I see.

If it was so clear and so obvious and if the Port really does like sport and if the transport questions are so perfect and if most of even the DEA residents favour it and the mayor goes to NYC to defend the MLS project and if everyone agrees and is so sure it is a great idea and Kerfoot is a saint and his bones should be buried in the crypt as Christ's Church Cathedral when he dies even if he is not Catholic, and even the hard-core fans have to come to Kerfoot's rescue....why was Bobby talking about a five year deal at BC Place starting sometime around 2011?

The Whitecaps themselves are giving themselves until 2016 to get the stadium done? If that is the case, after Kerfoot has had 14 years of revenue from the waterfront site, why exactly are so many of you so soccerly-optimistic about the real motives behind the proposal?

I think it is time to wake up and realize that Kerfoot blew it or he really never cared. If he'd put the stadium first, he would have bought elsewhere and it would already be under construction. As is, the Caps themselves are projecting for 8 years from now. And this thread started with an unnamed source suggesting the stadium deal in Vancouver was a deal-breaker.

One final thing: until a few months ago I was firmly in favour of the whole thing, but after discussing with a few people and thinking a bit more objectively about it I have changed my mind. And I think my opinion is more realistic than most here.

[piltdownman]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

That's not BMO Field, that's Lamport Stadium.

BMO's footprint is much bigger.

oops

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Maybe we should start a Stanley Park campaign, based on the argument that if they can build in the other Stanley Park, the one that will sport a Kop, they can build in this one.

[piltdownman]

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

Anyway, what about all that semi-vacant land at the very beginning of Strathcona - where Gore meets Prior?

That would bring things full circle as that the False Creek Flats. Its where Kerfoot was encouraged to built before the city changed their plans. Its now slated for "Providence HeathCare" and a park

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/landuse.pdf

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by brownbear

I was wrong, Jeffrey. From the Whitecaps website: http://www.whitecapsfc.com/stadium/waterfront/faq/:

I think they're being overly optimistic, although I am looking out my office window and down upon the top floor of a six-story parkade, nwhich is on Water St. and has 100 parking spaces on the top floor. So that's 600 right there and it's right across the street from the Landing.

And that parking structure is owned by Greg Kerfoot.

[piltdownman]

I have a question about parking. How is it that the Whitecaps stadium with a capacity of only ~20k seat has an issue with parking? but the BC place Renovations (along with Concords future plans + GM tower) will see a 60K seat stadium with no parking either?

Think about it. Concord has condos planned for the parking lots on either side of Cambie. BC Place renovations call for condo in all four of its corner parking lots. The old indy paddock is going top be condos and a park. And the parking lot beside GM place will be GM tower. That would leave only Parking lot beside the Queen E, which I believe is a post office parking lot, is it not?

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=49.276677,-123.11019&z=16&t=h&hl=en

[youllneverwalkalone]

quote:Originally posted by piltdownman

That would bring things full circle as that the False Creek Flats. Its where Kerfoot was encouraged to built before the city changed their plans. Its now slated for "Providence HeathCare" and a park

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/landuse.pdf

Is there no room for compromise within that space? It seems like a huge chunk of land. Also, there is a quite a large park not far down the road. I'm all for more parks and hospitals, but the stadium could be incorporated within in them. Drinks, football, and a stomach pump all on the same site.

If you google map it, that warehouse that's the big red square in the city plan is about half the size of GM Place. Why can't we cut a bit off the park/hospital and build 'er right there?

[Johnnie Monster]

Screw it. Let's build the whole damn thing underwater inside a giant Jetson-style glass bubble.

[Trident]

quote:Originally posted by Johnnie Monster

Screw it. Let's build the whole damn thing underwater inside a giant Jetson-style glass bubble.

Contract some dudes from Dubai.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Contract some dudes from Dubai.

You are aware that Vancouver's former head planner is one of the people driving forward some of Dubai's most ambitious new projects, including one imitating False Creek? I think that is what you are referring to then?

[Johnnie Monster]

No, he's referring to the Hydropolis underwater hotel they're building over there...

[piltdownman]

Thsi news also has to favour Miami who already wanted to start in 2010 and have a brand new 18k seat stadium to use for free.

[Trident]

quote:Originally posted by Johnnie Monster

No, he's referring to the Hydropolis underwater hotel they're building over there...

yeap

[ag futbol]

quote:Originally posted by piltdownman

Thsi news also has to favour Miami who already wanted to start in 2010 and have a brand new 18k seat stadium to use for free.

Not too sure about that one. FIU would have to pop a really favorable lease for MLS to consider, and it would have to be long term. Bad lease deals are a large part of what's keeping a lot of teams in the red currently.

If the miami mayor ever gets his stadium proposal done (better location than FIU and SSS) they'll be through.

[Richard]

^ OK, but then until we can build a Canadian league with a solid foundation what do you suggest we do?

The MLS has already lasted more than twice as long as the original CSL did before its ignominious collapse and even the worst MLS franchise is probably worth more than the entire CSL was at its zenith. Professional football/soccer is a business first and foremost. Investors now are only interested in the USL and the MLS, not even a glimmer of interest in a CSL-2. Should we turn our backs on the USL and MLS and the investors lining up to operate franchises in Canada (and elsewhere)? I don't think that would do much for the Canadian game.

Dream on about a domestic Canadian league, for the foreseeable future it will exist only in your fantasies.

[tmcmurph]

quote:Originally posted by dsqpr

Why is everybody drooling over MLS, a CRAP LEAGUE that isn't even capable of reading a calendar of international dates?

A crap league that, like the band, plays on during the FIFA World Cup.

A crap league that hardly anybody knows about or cares about.

A crap league whose strongest franchise is an expansion team. In short, a crap league with roots as deep as those of your average garden weed.

A CANADIAN league would be MUCH better, if we could ever build one with a solid foundation.

It is the best we have in North America. Drool? No definitely not. Playing during international dates is one of many things they do wrong. It is dumb beyond belief to play during World Cup.

"If we could ever build one with a solid foundation" ... I think you just answered your own question.

For all its faults the MLS is the best we have. Sad state of affairs in our continent but we have to start somewhere.

[Keegan]

Why does every press release call MLS the top league in North America? MEXICO is in North America last time I checked! Plus who are MLS to call themselves even better than USL?

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Keegan

Why does every press release call MLS the top league in North America? MEXICO is in North America last time I checked! Plus who are MLS to call themselves even better than USL?

Years of history have proven MLS better than USL.

[VPjr]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Years of history have proven MLS better than USL.

marginally better, at best.

MLS teams are wealthier, by and large.

MLS appears to be somewhat better managed, by and large

However, on the field of play, there is little to seperate the two leagues, and the gap will only continue to narrow in my opinion

MLS will only really start to deserve its "major league" monicker when they choose to loosen the purse strings in a significant way and allows teams more flexibility in terms of roster structure, structure of academies, etc...

The past is the past. USL has been something of a mickey mouse league in the past but its fortunes have turned around significantly, its clubs are competing and succeeding at the CONCACAF level, more and more of their teams are playing out of top notch facilities (better than what some MLS teams play out of), their games are getting weekly national air time (although its only on FSC/FSWC) and they have strong ownership in most cities. What they don't have is a model for making money, primarily because they have not tapped into the alternative revenue streams that MLS has tapped into through their SUM organization. That is USL's largest handicap and I don't know how they overcome that.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

Most if not all of the things that you saying are nothing new or recent. In fact, I used to express the same sentiments that you have, about four to five years ago. At road trips to Rochester we used see large turn out for games there. Montreal has been packing them in for at at least 5 years now. In 2003 a group of twenty or Toronto supporters ( many from this forum ) went to see a gold cup triple header that involved an MLS match between NY-NE. The general sentiment was that there was not to much to distinguish between the two circuits. But anyone ( of the dozen or so here) who has been around to see the the USL from 2000 to 2006 ( I've seen approx 50 USL games over that span), will tell you otherwise now that they have seen 2 years and roughly 25-30 worthy of MLS games or game invloving MLS teams.

The play is more entertaining and the top end talent is better in MLS. Which is what you want to pay for when you go to a game. That and the overall profesionalism of the operation. These are factors that count for a lot. And, if you look at it in that regard, there is little to no difference between now and 2001 in regards to USL. USL teams have had some success in Open cups, but that also happend in the past. USL games have been on FSWC for a while now.

The interesting thing that I have observed is that many here who espouse the views that the USL is better or is closing the gap are those whom we didn't see around at USL games. or whose exposure to USL soccer is a very recent phenomena ( 1-2 years).

[RS]

(To Vpjr)

I think you are putting too much stock into this year, which has admittedly been a poor one for MLS vis a vis other leagues in CONCACAF (for a variety of reasons). Others ion this board have fallen into the same trap.

You say MLS has proven themselves "marginally better, at best" in response to my assertion that MLS has years of history that has proven them better. If that is so, why has MLS so completely dominated the US Open Cup since the league's inception? Most of the time while playing reserves and bench warmers against USL sides.

How many US national teamers have come from USL in comparison to MLS? Brian Ching is the only one I can recall, and he only got called up after having proven himself at the MLS level. Clyde Simms also garnered a cap while with Richmond, but that was more of a thank you to the USLers who answered the call after the USMNT went on strike ahead of a game against T&T during the last WCQ cycle.

quote:The past is the past. USL has been something of a mickey mouse league in the past

Its handling of its own Cup Final has shown that they still have lot to learn in that regard.

quote:its clubs are competing and succeeding at the CONCACAF level

Non-US based clubs. We need to remember this.

As much as people may not want to admit it, both the USL and MLS are only as good as their US-based sides, as that's where the bulk of the leagues will always be based, and that's where the competitions are won and lost. And as I said above, MLS has dominated USL in US-Based competition for over a decade, the 1999 Rhinos Open Cup win aside.

I cannot seriously see the Minnesota Thunder or Portland Timbers making a run like Montreal and Puerto Rico are doing, if only because they have to compete for talent with many USL and MLS sides for talent. The Canadian USL sides don't have that problem, yet.

quote:more and more of their teams are playing out of top notch facilities (better than what some MLS teams play out of)

And MLS teams aren't?

There are teams in both leagues playing out of crap facilities, just as there are teams in both leagues playing out of good facilities. To me, it's painfully obvious which league has more of the top-notch facilities, either built or soon to be completed. It's not USL.

quote:their games are getting weekly national air time (although its only on FSC/FSWC) and they have strong ownership in most cities

Check and check.

My point is not to belittle USL, as its done a lot for this country's soccer. I'm simply pointing out that the areas in which you claim USL is growing are also the areas where MLS has already grown and has much, much more potential for future growth.

The fact is that we've been relying on USL and its predecessors for years, and where has it gotten us? MLS, for all its flaws, can raise the conciousness of soccer in this country far beyond USL. That to me is the biggest issue in trying to get the game to where it needs to be in this country.

As much as Montreal is garnering attention in Quebec now, I'm convinced that the same team, in MLS, would be far more of a success in getting Quebecers to think about soccer on a regular basis.

Is USL closing the gap? Only time will tell, I suppose. But I think there has been a knee-jerk reaction to the events of these past few months that has led some to overestimate USL and underestimate MLS. This is coming from someone who has had the opportunity to watch roughly the same amount of games - live - in both leagues.

Regardless, the USL, for all of its strides forward, still has the very dangerous problem of possibly losing all of its strong teams to MLS in the next few years. That to me is the biggest indicator of where things are going. Despite the improved USL, it's better sides are STILL clamouring for MLS. In a few years, this argument may well be moot if those teams get their way.

[hamiltonfan]

From a business perspective, the MLS can not do all the things that we as traditional football fans are accustom to. The league would go bust just like pervious major soccer leagues in North America.

The USL is minor league and that is OK, we do need a second division in North America. To take nothing away from the Impact (I really hate even brining this up), but it’s no secret, many MLS teams did not field their first team in the CCL. There is no USL team with better facilities and resources than an MLS side. Montreal is the closest, but still improvements to both stadium and management would have to be made for the move on up.

The USL is a great second division. It has seen improvements over the past few years, but I also see some very tough times in the future for the league.

Lets take a look the USL and what’s going.

We have Seattle, a team that has been part of the league in 1994, is gone next year. Low attendance in the USL averaging just over 3000 this year.

Montreal, leading the league in attendance, they’ll be in the MLS within a few years. No questions asked.

Portland, Vancouver are trying to make the push up; Both great organizations that will most likely be in the league for a few more years, I could see both teams staying in the league for years to come.

….the core of the league

Puerto Rico, nothing wrong here. Great team, doing well in the CCL as well as league play. Great fans in a decent baseball stadium.

Rochester, not the franchise it use to be, they have seen some management and ownership problems lately, but still a flagship franchise in the USL. Averages around 7000 in their own soccer specific seating 14 000

…and the rest

Charleston, great ownership group who have put money into this team. Own their stadium averaging around 4000, 5000 capacity, perfect for a USL team. Also have separate practice fields.

Carolina, great owners(Bob young just bought into the team), great stadium averaging under 4000 in a 7500. Lets wait until next year to see if the support holds up or goes down.

Minnesota, at one point this team was doing great. Things have change and Minnesota is now having trouble getting 3500 out. This team has to get back where they were at.

Atlanta, Miami: both teams have horrible support and have to do better. In order for the USL to gain more that credibility, things have to change here.

The MLS has become much more stable over the last few years. Large corporate deals, wealth owners waiting at their door step, and TFC;) have allowed for that to happen. This is something that the USL does not have with teams flying in and out of that league.

All in all, both league needs improvement and are vital to the game in our country. Love them both and more good will come

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

(

Is USL closing the gap? Only time will tell, I suppose. But I think there has been a knee-jerk reaction to the events of these past few months that has led some to overestimate USL and underestimate MLS. This is coming from someone who has had the opportunity to watch roughly the same amount of games - live - in both leagues.

As I alluded to earlier, we used to ask the same questions here on this very forum four years ago. We saw USL players on the national team. we saw strong attendance in places like Rochester and Montreal. Games were starting to be televised. There are some good USL players now but there were also good USL player then.

But are things any different today? not really. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I get a sence that the attendance gap has increased in favour of the MLS because MLS has had stronger growth at the gate.

In short, what I am getting at is that the so called " closing the gap" has more to do with perception than reality.

To be clear, I dont want to see USL loose steam. We need both.

[VPjr]

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

The interesting thing that I have observed is that many here who espouse the views that the USL is better or is closing the gap are those whom we didn't see around at USL games. or whose exposure to USL soccer is a very recent phenomena ( 1-2 years).

I stopped going to Lynx games when they left Varsity. Not exactly sure why but that was more or less the same time I had my first kid so I guess my priorities were changing.

Prior to the move to Centennial, I wasn't a season ticket holder but I'd make it out to 3-4 games per year on average. After the move, I think I went to Centennial a total of 3 times.

Until around 2003-2004, I had zero exposure to MLS so I really didn't try to compare USL to MLS until recently. For the longest time, I only knew USL/A-League and I liked it and when I started watching MLS, some of the players were more recognizeable but I never really saw a big difference in the quality of play on the field.

I wont entirely deny Rudi's claim that my (and other's) growing disenchantment with MLS may be a bit knee-jerk. There is a chance that I will be proven wrong, soon. I hope that is the case. MLS is certainly better than when I first began to pay attention 4-5 years ago but the pace of change is so frustratingly slow. The league certainly is far more high profile than when I started paying attention to it but that's the biggest improvement I can point to (although, to be fair, facilities have improved quite a bit the past 3-4 years too).

I will also agree with Rudi's point that the 3 non-US teams do significantly bring up the overall level of the USL. The bottom clubs in USL would struggle mightily in MLS. However, the top 3-4 best teams in USL do some things better than most MLS teams, namely investing in scouting and player development. I'm concerned that those teams may not have the freedom to run their businesses as they do now if they make the jump to MLS, and that would be a shame.