Obinna Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 When will the expansion franchises be rewarded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 in march 09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Obinna When will the expansion franchises be rewarded? When they make their $40 million back As to when the MLS will award the "winners" of this round their right to give $40 million to MLS I don't know. Any time that could generate some media coverage. My bet is a week after the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 quote:Originally posted by snake in march 09 Garber actually said "by March" to the Portland group. But, Garber kinda makes it up as he goes along. I would expect that the draft might be a place where an announcement is made (Jan. 15) -- especially if St. Louis is one of the successful applicants (the draft is in St. Louis). Actually, I'd argue that the St. Louis bid ids dead if they aren't awarded the team during the draft. I'm not entirely convinced they are going to actually name the cities this year. It wouldn't shock me if it was put on hold for a year to see what the economy does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Think their best policy would be to strike when the metal is hot because the economic outlook is far from good. May be a long time before it would be possible to put another SSS deal together in the St Louis area, for example, if they allow the Collinsville project to fall by the wayside. I suspect the credit crunch was a big factor in what happened with the Montreal bid, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard Think their best policy would be to strike when the metal is hot because the economic outlook is far from good. May be a long time before it would be possible to put another SSS deal together in the St Louis area, for example, if they allow the Collinsville project to fall by the wayside. I suspect the credit crunch was a big factor in what happened with the Montreal bid, however. The credit crunch was not a factor at all in the Montreal bid. Saputo had the money and said so. He didn't think the MLS was worth the money they wanted and didn't have a stadium that met MLS standard even with his expansion plan. MLS didn't want to lower their criteria and Saputo thought their criteria were priced more than they were worth even though he could afford it or possibly thought he had such a good bid they would lower their demands. The credit crunch may be a factor in some of the other bids but it was not one in Montreal's bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I was thinking more about Gillett than Saputo. http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-takeover-financed-by-298m-loans-but-its-all-ok/1245/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I have read March stated a number of time by Garber. I also read something where he said they would narrow the field to 4 by December which obviously did not happen. Then those 4 would have the next 3 months to demonstrate their ability to meet all the criteria. I agree MediaGuy though, Garber seems to make it up as he goes along. He has for years and in my mind, it questions the integrity of the man and the MLS. all that being said, he certainly seems to be growing the sport and enticing owners with deep pockets into the league...so he is doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveBeau Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly The credit crunch was not a factor at all in the Montreal bid. Saputo had the money and said so. He didn't think the MLS was worth the money they wanted and didn't have a stadium that met MLS standard even with his expansion plan. MLS didn't want to lower their criteria and Saputo thought their criteria were priced more than they were worth even though he could afford it or possibly thought he had such a good bid they would lower their demands. The credit crunch may be a factor in some of the other bids but it was not one in Montreal's bid. Just out of curiousity where did you read or hear about Saputo stadium not meeting MLS standard even after expanded? I don't recall reading about that anywhere, i thought it was all because he would not put up the whole 40$ million US for the expansion fee..I have trouble believing that Garber and the expansion commitee would not seriously consider Saputo's bid if he was willing to pay the 40$ million US AND expand the stadium to 20 000 seats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly The credit crunch was not a factor at all in the Montreal bid. Saputo had the money and said so. He didn't think the MLS was worth the money they wanted and didn't have a stadium that met MLS standard even with his expansion plan. MLS didn't want to lower their criteria and Saputo thought their criteria were priced more than they were worth even though he could afford it or possibly thought he had such a good bid they would lower their demands. The credit crunch may be a factor in some of the other bids but it was not one in Montreal's bid. Joey played chicken and lost. There really isn't another way to put it. And, he did lose. So did Montreal's fans. One CONCACAF Champions League run is not a trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy Joey played chicken and lost. There really isn't another way to put it. And, he did lose. So did Montreal's fans. One CONCACAF Champions League run is not a trend. Maybe we did lose, but a what cost? To a business man, this needs to make business sense, and in the end it didn't make sense to pay the price MLS wanted. The news coming out of Philadelphia is not good for the MLS. Makes me think Garber will call Joey Saputo back eventually. Talking about trends. Hmmm, I think you forgot about Puerto Rico, another USL team that is also in the quarter finals. Their is only 1 MLS team left in the competition. So far USL 2 - MLS 1. Trend or not those are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 quote:Originally posted by massimo Maybe we did lose, but a what cost? To a business man, this needs to make business sense, and in the end it didn't make sense to pay the price MLS wanted. The news coming out of Philadelphia is not good for the MLS. Makes me think Garber will call Joey Saputo back eventually. Talking about trends. Hmmm, I think you forgot about Puerto Rico, another USL team that is also in the quarter finals. Their is only 1 MLS team left in the competition. So far USL 2 - MLS 1. Trend or not those are the facts. Look at the US Open Cup history. That's your sample. No excuse on the TFC front. Toronto deserved what it got. But, you are delusional if you think the rest of the MLS teams (or Mexican, or Costa Rica) were putting first choice squads out in that competition. I don't agree with their thinking, but... Enjoy the quarters. I truly hope you have a league to play in come 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard I was thinking more about Gillett than Saputo. http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-takeover-financed-by-298m-loans-but-its-all-ok/1245/ The credit crunch did hurt Gillett but I don't think he was ever a serious financial backer of the project. Gillett is one of those guys who if you count all of his assets is worth a lot of money but when you look at how much of the assets he actually owns compared to what the banks own he is not that wealthy (in sports millionaire/billionaire terms). This was well apparent well before the credit crunch (I myself posted this a long time ago) and Gillett is not even close to the league of the Saputos as far as financial wealth goes. If I knew this a long time ago you can be sure the Saputos were far more aware of this. Gillett was brought into the bid because of his expertise in running major league franchises and because of cross marketing possibilities with the Habs and Liverpool. There was only one issue in this case, whether the Saputos were willing to meet the demands of MLS. We can argue back and forth whether or not the MLS demands are justified but the Saputos by their own admission were capable of meeting the demands but unwilling to do so. In my opinion even if Gillett went bankrupt it wouldn't affect this one issue. Thus, I don't think it can be argued that the credit crunch played a role in the failure of the Montreal MLS bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 quote:Originally posted by SteveBeau Just out of curiousity where did you read or hear about Saputo stadium not meeting MLS standard even after expanded? I don't recall reading about that anywhere, i thought it was all because he would not put up the whole 40$ million US for the expansion fee..I have trouble believing that Garber and the expansion commitee would not seriously consider Saputo's bid if he was willing to pay the 40$ million US AND expand the stadium to 20 000 seats... I don't think it is necessary to read or hear about this, you merely have to look at the stadium. It is a third division level stadium with almost no indoor facilities and stands that resemble temporary stands. If you look at the non-temporary MLS stadiums, they are all of a higher quality even the one I would rank the worst in Columbus which was built when MLS standards were not as high as they are now. The proposed SS renovations were not going to improve the quality, it was just to build more seats of a similar level of quality. The newer MLS stadiums and proposed ones are all of a far better level and in fact are even far better than BMO stadium. Salt Lake just completed a very nice stadium and construction in New York of what will also be a very impressive facility is well underway. Look at what the Ottawa bid is proposing, if it gets built (and I know it is a big if) it will be hard for BMO to maintain its billing as the national stadium when a stadium twice as nice with natural grass is in the nation's capital. MLS wants professional level stadiums and was accepting 2nd division level stadiums for a while (still better than Stade Saputo) but most of the newer stadiums and proposed stadiums are reaching the level that a smaller EPL team could play in. We also had reports that Gerber was not impressed with Stade Saputo both public and in private comments. He called it a high school stadium. MLS has a policy of trying to have teams play in professional level stadiums which you can agree with or not but the fact is Saputo Stadium did not meet this standard. I don't dislike the stadium, it is good for USL and I have spent a lot of time in lower division stadiums in Europe and to some extent like them better than the big stadiums. Yet it was apparent to me from the beginning that this stadium was well below MLS standards. Many in Montreal have used the argument "but its built" in a positive sense but I think this is a total negative. MLS is pretty flexible in letting teams play in poorer stadiums as long as they know that building a top notch stadium is in the plans. Yet with us having a poor level stadium that was new was the worst position to be in, everyone knows that they are not going to completely rebuild Saputo Stadium a few years after it is built. It is possible as you speculate that MLS might have accepted the Montreal bid if we paid the $40 million but I don't think it is as sure a thing as you state. If the other bids are willing to pay the $40 million AND build a top level stadium than why should they accept us. I think the fact our bid was outright rejected so early with no negotiations shows that it was inadequate in many areas not just the expansion fee, so inadequate that MLS felt negotiations were not worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy There is ample evidence to suggest that fixture congestion had a lot to do with the poor performances by the MLS clubs. But what evidence is there that the other sides didn't put their best foot forward? Granted we know little about the Central American clubs, I noted that the international players on those sides all played and figured prominently in CONCACAF CL matches that I saw. You might have a better argument suggesting that a club like Olimpia was not having as good a season compared to the prior years. The others like real Estrili, and Joe Public, we they were so visibly inferior to the Impact that it didn't make any difference. From what I saw of the CCL, Montreal are full marks for their results. They played well and got the results that they deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy Joey played chicken and lost. There really isn't another way to put it. And, he did lose. So did Montreal's fans. One CONCACAF Champions League run is not a trend. Maybe we did lose, but a what cost? To a business man, this needs to make business sense, and in the end it didn't make sense to pay the price MLS wanted. The news coming out of Philadelphia is not good for the MLS. Makes me think Garber will call Joey Saputo back eventually. Talking about trends. Hmmm, I think you forgot about Puerto Rico, another USL team that is also in the quarter finals. Their is only 1 MLS team left in the competition. So far USL 2 - MLS 1. Trend or not those are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag futbol Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 ^ Are you really sure about that? So far the effects on MLS are present but there are still plenty of signs the league is healthy. They did just sign a 8 figure contract for TV rights and they have numerous deals with ESPN, Adidas, VW, etc... The slow growth model they have is actually perfect for this economic time because it's given them a more steady source of revenue. Not that the entire situation is perfect, but it's certainly not dire. The bottom line regarding the gap between the USL and MLS quality of play is purely economic in my mind. The MLS salary cap (exclusive of allocation money and dp money etc...) is double what the average USL club spends. CBA is up next year, everybody is expecting an increase regardless of the current economic environment because last time this thing was negotiated, things were much worse for the league than they are now. Does that rule out a USL club beating an MLS club? no but as the gap wides it certainly makes it less likely. As for superliga, it's still early days. Despite it's title, that's not the bottom line in terms of meaning and importance. If that was the case, we'd all be glued to our TV's for the club world cup each year, but that's clearly not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Free kick But what evidence is there that the other sides didn't put their best foot forward? As a somewhat random example, here is Saprissa's line-up on Oct 9 against DC United. The Costa Rica side is generally considered to be the best in CONCACAF outside of Mexico and was right in the thick of it at kick-off that day. 35 José Francisco Porras (G) (back-up) 3 Victor Flores Cordero (D) (spot starter) 30 Randall Porras (D) (reserve player) 14 Andrés Nuñez (D) (back-up) 18 Jervis Drummod (D) (back-up) 31 Michael Barrantes Rojas (M) (back-up) 15 José Luis Cordero (M) (reserve player) 11 Ronald Gomez (F) (spot starter) (M) Cesar Elizondo (F) (reserve player) (M) 9 Ariel Santana (F) (reserve player) (M) 7 Alejandro Alpizar Delgado (F) (normal starter) Montreal beat the teams that were put in front of them. Good for them. But, it's important to understand what the bigger team were up to -- least someone mistake the USL's success with evidence that it's the second best league in CONCACAF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 quote: It wouldn't shock me if it was put on hold for a year to see what the economy does. The economy isn't going to dictate when expansion occurs. In fact, if they accept 4 teams into the fold (which I'm almost certain they'll do) and IF the existing teams each get a share of the expansion fees, then each team stands to collect close to 10 million dollars (depending on what the League keeps). That to me, is incredible incentive for the current teams Governors to accept 4 new franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 quote:Originally posted by ag futbol ^ Are you really sure about that? So far the effects on MLS are present but there are still plenty of signs the league is healthy. They did just sign a 8 figure contract for TV rights and they have numerous deals with ESPN, Adidas, VW, etc... The slow growth model they have is actually perfect for this economic time because it's given them a more steady source of revenue. Not that the entire situation is perfect, but it's certainly not dire. The bottom line regarding the gap between the USL and MLS quality of play is purely economic in my mind. The MLS salary cap (exclusive of allocation money and dp money etc...) is double what the average USL club spends. CBA is up next year, everybody is expecting an increase regardless of the current economic environment because last time this thing was negotiated, things were much worse for the league than they are now. Does that rule out a USL club beating an MLS club? no but as the gap wides it certainly makes it less likely. As for superliga, it's still early days. Despite it's title, that's not the bottom line in terms of meaning and importance. If that was the case, we'd all be glued to our TV's for the club world cup each year, but that's clearly not true. I'm not saying its all bad but Philly were given a franchise and seems they won't even make it through one season at this rate. Garber needs to be doing a better job rating his prospective owners. Clearly there are a lot of good in the League however I wonder, how good is it to keep a team like Montreal on the outside looking in. The setup without relegation at this point looks ludicrous. Keeping teams like sorry guys Toronto, San Jose in. Even LA with Donovan and Becks still manage to suck. While a team Vancouver sits on the sidelines, crossing their fingers to be let in. I know its the N-A model, but somehow the two leagues need to merge be it, 2 difference divisions, or two leagues side by side. Something needs to give somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 quote:Originally posted by massimo Something needs to give somewhere. Why? The sky is not falling, and the league is in far better shape than it was even three years ago. I don't understand why anyone expects promotion/relegation in a franchise league. I don't see people clamouring (as much) for the USL to introduce promotion/relegation, so how does it make sense for the league with higher standards (ownership and facility-wise) to introduce it, ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Rudi so how does it make sense for the league with higher standards (ownership and facility-wise) to introduce it, ever? It doesn't, ever. Nor, is it likely that it would even be possible. The second MLS tried to send the LA Galaxy to MLS-2 the league would find itself sued. These are franchises. They paid a fee for the right to play in MLS. If the league took that away from them the league would be in breach of its agreement with the teams. It would be like your local mall kicking The Gap out to the parking lot because it didn't sell enough jeans the year before. It can't be done. No, really, it can't. Unless...every single team currently in MLS agreed to submit themselves to the possibility of relegation to MLS-2. They would need to be compensated for it. Does anyone really see that happening? Say it with me one more time: THERE IS MORE CHANCE OF A BIG EURO LEAGUE ELIMINATING RELEGATION THAN MLS ADAPTING IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy Look at the US Open Cup history. That's your sample. No excuse on the TFC front. Toronto deserved what it got. But, you are delusional if you think the rest of the MLS teams (or Mexican, or Costa Rica) were putting first choice squads out in that competition. I don't agree with their thinking, but... They weren't their first-choice teams, but that's part of the argument behind the narrow gap b/w MLS and USL --> MLS teams have no depth. If an MLS team rests their top 3 or 4 players, they are suddenly on par with a mid-table USL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Interesting Blog Post from Ives Galarcep today. he thinks St. Louis should be a front runner (ahead of Vancouver) for an MLS franchise and gives his reasons why. i think there are a bunch of holes in his logic but feel free to weigh in http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/01/monday-morning-centerback-time-for-mls-to-add-st-louis.html#more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 quote:Originally posted by amacpher They weren't their first-choice teams, but that's part of the argument behind the narrow gap b/w MLS and USL --> MLS teams have no depth. If an MLS team rests their top 3 or 4 players, they are suddenly on par with a mid-table USL team. Yes that is exactly correct. MLS teams have no depth and on many of the teams even the starters from 8 to 11 are poor. MLS has taken the policy of investing the majority of its money in a few players and paying the rest of the team poorly. Thus I think it is a false argument to say that MLS did poorly in Champions League because too many players were rested. They did poorly because they have poor to mediocre teams supplemented by 3 or 4 good players and 3 or 4 decent players and if a few of these are missing one sees how poor the teams really are. If you can put a decent side out when you have no injuries and have your absolute best 11 on the field but can not put out a decent side when a few players are missing, this is indicative of the poor quality of your team and league. Additionally, I think too much is made of the Mexican and Central American teams not playing their best players. Olimpia had their best players on the pitch against us and Atlante only sat a couple of starters most of whom came on as substitutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.