Confirmed: The TOA League Split is Happening

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Johnnie Monster

I disagree that both leagues look weak or diluted. Truth be told, I think the TOA has much more stable ownership who understand how to run a club the way it should be.

TOA

Atlanta - long running franchise with a fairly new SSS.

Baltimore - somewhat unproven, but ties to Crystal Palace lend credibility.

Carolina - solid owners, competitive since day 1.

Miami - USL attendance aside, Traffic Sports = megabucks.

Minnesota - long running franchise, nice stadium, loyal fan base

Montreal - Joey Saputo. Megabucks.

St.Louis - Jeff Cooper. Megabucks.

Tampa Bay - unknown /unproven

Vancouver - Greg Kerfoot. Megabucks.

USL-1

Austin - unproven ownership playing on a gridiron, drawing flies. Destined to fail in MLS territory.

Charleston - great club with a great SSS, but drawing very poorly.

Cleveland - financial ruins, up for sale after just one year at D1.

New York - unproven ownership, destined to fail in MLS territory.

Portland - Great organization. Shame to part ways.

Puerto Rico - Competitive, but the distance is murder on travel budgets. Furthermore, the island territory had a massive financial meltdown two years ago (before the banking crisis here) that saw massive unemployment and a halt to almost all government services. As such, its long term survival has to be called into question.

Rochester - a formerly great organization that is presently mired in more lawsuits and financial troubles than Enron. Attendance is nowhere near what it once was. I remember a few years ago when the announcers on FSC referred to Rochester as "the Manchester United of the USL." I think now it's more on par with Sheffield Wednesday.

Someone on the Southsiders board brought up a good point... wouldn't it be great if the Victoria Highlanders PDL club moved into the TOA?

That would give you Vancouver, Montreal, Victoria and potentially Edmonton and Ottawa all playing together in one league.

I disagree with some of the assessments that you give and also find them biased towards TOA teams and against USL ones. How can you say that a team (Minnesota)that averages 3200 has a "loyal fan base" while at the same time say that Austin with an average of 3000 is drawing flies? Even Charleston who are drawing very poorly in your opinion only have an average attendance 700 below Carolina. And no mention of attendance is made with Miami who only averaged 1063 fans per game and played one game this year with 348 spectators. Baltimore gains credibility from its Crystal Palace affiliation yet with "destined to fail" Austin no mention is made of their Stoke City affiliation who unlike Palace are an EPL club. USL club Rochester gets a negative comment from you (Attendance is nowhere near what it once was) despite having the 3rd best attendance of any of the teams and higher than the team you support and if I remember correctly work for.

What exactly consititutes good attendance for you? I personally wouldn't consider any team below 5000 to have solid attendance and there are only 4 teams above 5000, Montreal, Portland, Rochester and Vancouver in order of best attendance. Of those two are going TOA and two are remaining USL and 3 of them will probably be in MLS shortly. Additionally, the next highest team in attendance is not even above 4000, Charleston with a pretty low average of 3534. And yes, Atlanta is a long running franchise. It is also a long running franchise that has a history of poor attendance and fielding weak teams who took last year off. You also conveniently "forgot" to mention that Minnesota appears to be having financial difficulties at the moment and fielded a team that was not competitive last year.

Personally I am looking a bit sceptically at both sides. If the TOA can convince teams like Rochester and Puerto Rico to join them then I will feel confident in them having a good league next year. However, the present TOA league looks a lot weaker than last year's USL and last year's USL had 3 non-competitive teams and many teams with poor attendance. At some point there will probably only be one league at this level USL or TOA. It is possible that the TOA has enough money to survive whatever happens next year and will be run better than USL. It is also possible that this will be a money-losing disaster with a poor playing level that folds shortly. Whatever happens I think it is very important that those strong franchises are together in one league and hopefully next year to avoid leagues with a couple of good teams competing against a larger number of weak teams.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Vancouversoccerman

Meanwhile, USL could still be appealing to the Mom 'n Pop type operator (think Toronto Lynx) who wants to bring pro soccer to their city, but doesn't want to spend the same type of money you need to compete in MLS or the TOA league. There still aren't a lot of people willing to invest in soccer in Canada, so having a few smaller-budget USL teams spread across the country isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The thing is that I wouldn't be surprised to see the USL merge its 1st and 2nd Divisions and find a common ground for them to operate.

[Johnnie Monster]

Grizzly: I'm taking some non-numerical factors into account when I talk about who's "drawing poorly."

It's my understanding that "real" attendance in Rochester, Charleston and Puerto Rico has been in steady decline over the past four years, despite whatever numbers are being announced by those clubs to give the appearance of success. While it's true they may be drawing more than other teams in TOA and USL-1, fact is those markets are bleeding out financially and severely underperforming given the markets they are in. Rochester and Charleston *should* be matching Vancouver in terms of **real** attendance (asses in full price seats on a consistent basis), but they're not.

I'm not fully briefed with respect to financial difficulties in Minnesota other than an allegation of a $100,000 debt to the USL. Regardless, I still wager that Rochester, PR and Cleveland are in much more financial trouble than the Thunder. As for fielding a non-competitive team, I think 2009 was an anomaly for Minnesota. They generally make good runs for playoff spots year in and year out, and have given Vancouver its fair share of trouble on the pitch.

And btw, there was nothing "convenient" about my failing to acknowledge the bogus Stoke City partnership in Austin. I didn't mention it because the ties with Stoke City are loose at best, and they exist only for marketing hype to sell tickets (which has not worked well).

Austin co-owner Phil Rawlins is a board member at Stoke City. The Aztex are his personal pet project. There has been talk of "sharing coaching info" with Stoke City, but to my knowledge there has been no roster moves between them. The two English players who have suited up for Austin did not come by way of Stoke City.

Contrast that with CP Baltimore which was actually created by Crystal Palace in the UK for the purpose of US player scouting and development. It remains owned and operated by CP today. At least two players have come to CP Baltimore directly from CP, maybe more. It is clear that CP Baltimore's affiliation with its parent club is much more genuine than Austin's.

And no, I am not employed by any football organization.

Last point: it is in the TOA's best interest NOT to take in Puerto Rico. Yes, they field a good team, but as mentioned previously, their longevity must be called into question given what has happened to the economy over there. More importantly, the cost of travelling to/from PR is astronomical.

Let's face facts: PR and Bermuda were brought into the USL fold (div 1 and 2 respectively) because the league executives thought they would lend some street cred and international flavor. There is no other rationale that can be used to justify the expense of flying to foreign territories for a domestic league match. It's crap like that that drove the TOA owners out of the league to begin with.

[Richard]

I am quite sure that since one of the big complaints the TOA had with the USL was poor due diligence on new clubs wishing to enter USL-1 and the subsequent instability and chaos that resulted when those new clubs defaulted that the TOA is being quite careful about which clubs they accept into their group.

[Tuscan]

Assuming the TOA league is more strict on which centers they wish to see clubs in, is that good in the long run for Canadian expansion? Just because a center is slightly smaller, it might still be the main center for the province (a la Regina or Saskatoon for Saskatchewan, Winnipeg for Manitoba, Victoria for the Island, etc...).

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Johnnie Monster

Grizzly: I'm taking some non-numerical factors into account when I talk about who's "drawing poorly."

It's my understanding that "real" attendance in Rochester, Charleston and Puerto Rico has been in steady decline over the past four years, despite whatever numbers are being announced by those clubs to give the appearance of success. While it's true they may be drawing more than other teams in TOA and USL-1, fact is those markets are bleeding out financially and severely underperforming given the markets they are in. Rochester and Charleston *should* be matching Vancouver in terms of **real** attendance (asses in full price seats on a consistent basis), but they're not.

I'm not fully briefed with respect to financial difficulties in Minnesota other than an allegation of a $100,000 debt to the USL. Regardless, I still wager that Rochester, PR and Cleveland are in much more financial trouble than the Thunder. As for fielding a non-competitive team, I think 2009 was an anomaly for Minnesota. They generally make good runs for playoff spots year in and year out, and have given Vancouver its fair share of trouble on the pitch.

And btw, there was nothing "convenient" about my failing to acknowledge the bogus Stoke City partnership in Austin. I didn't mention it because the ties with Stoke City are loose at best, and they exist only for marketing hype to sell tickets (which has not worked well).

Austin co-owner Phil Rawlins is a board member at Stoke City. The Aztex are his personal pet project. There has been talk of "sharing coaching info" with Stoke City, but to my knowledge there has been no roster moves between them. The two English players who have suited up for Austin did not come by way of Stoke City.

Contrast that with CP Baltimore which was actually created by Crystal Palace in the UK for the purpose of US player scouting and development. It remains owned and operated by CP today. At least two players have come to CP Baltimore directly from CP, maybe more. It is clear that CP Baltimore's affiliation with its parent club is much more genuine than Austin's.

And no, I am not employed by any football organization.

Last point: it is in the TOA's best interest NOT to take in Puerto Rico. Yes, they field a good team, but as mentioned previously, their longevity must be called into question given what has happened to the economy over there. More importantly, the cost of travelling to/from PR is astronomical.

Let's face facts: PR and Bermuda were brought into the USL fold (div 1 and 2 respectively) because the league executives thought they would lend some street cred and international flavor. There is no other rationale that can be used to justify the expense of flying to foreign territories for a domestic league match. It's crap like that that drove the TOA owners out of the league to begin with.

As far as working with the Caps I guess I am getting you mixed up with morbital. As far as your term "real" attendance, I am suspicious of all the attendances by teams in both the USL and TOA. The only team that isn't involved in one or more of padding attendance numbers, selling heavily discounted tickets to youth soccer groups, giving away tickets and other similar methods of filling the stadium is Vancouver and that is simply due to the small size of their stadium. When we played at Rochester I am not sure if the reported 10 000 were there but there were certainly 7 or 8000. I don't know why Rochester which has less than half the population of Vancouver or Charleston a quarter of Vancouver's population should be matching Vancouver in your opinion. Nevertheless, Rochester does outdraw Vancouver and Charleston had the next best attendance of any team after the top 4 last year (in fact, I got confused on my last post and stated Charleston was only 700 average fans below Carolina when in fact it is the other way around and your "very solid" Carolina draw 700 fans less per game than "drawing very poorly" Charleston.)

I have regularly checked airfares to Puerto Rico and several other US cities like Cary and Charleston for possible away trips this year and you can almost always get cheaper tickets to Puerto Rico which is a tourist destination. I don't know what arrangement the teams have with airlines but I don't see how Puerto Rico is that much more expensive (astronomical in your terms) than other cities like you claim especially since lodging and meals are probably much cheaper. Despite your overblown predictions of economic chaos in Puerto Rico, the team has solid ownership, regularly qualifies for the CCL and is consisently one of the strongest teams. If they are interested in joining the TOA the TOA would be crazy not to let them. Plus, they do give whatever league they are in credibility. When I tell people in Montreal we are playing Minnesota I get a "meh" response and when I tell them we are playing Puerto Rico I get an "interesting" response usually followed with a discussion about why Puerto Rico plays in our league.

All you wanted to know about "on the verge of folding" Minnesota's financial situation right here: http://abcnewspapers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9934&Itemid=27 Their problems and releasing/not paying of their players has been widely reported on ur forum so I am surprised you don't know about this since you are apparently aware of problems with Puerto Rico and Rochester that noone else has heard about. Yes USL has a history of not doing due dilligence on perspective clubs but seeing the TOA club list doesn't make me believe they are going to be any better in this respect at least in the near term.

I am sceptical about both sides claims in this debate and am not sure why you are so biased towards TOA. Yes USL 1 needs to be reformed and to be better run. Yet in the end I think a lot of this debate is the conflicting interests of a bunch of rich guys which only partly has to do with soccer issues. I would like to see both sides solve their differences because I am not particularly interested in watching either the TOA or USL next year as they currently stand, especially after 2 or 3 years in which the USL with the exception of 2 or 3 teams was a quite good league with a significant level of improvement each year. I hope that all the stonger teams will be playing in the same league next year and in the years to come and don't really care under whose banner it is.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I agree with Grizzly, as a Caps fan, the bias in favour of TOA and the extreme nature of the slagging of USL after it has served us a hell of a lot better than any other league in the continent for a good long time is underhanded and unjustified. The new league does not guarantee better attendance, or better quality play, or a stronger league, or more interesting rivals, or better marketing, or better any other abstract thing like "owner control" which is simply a euphemism for doing exactly the same thing as before except with maybe, possible, more say, but more say in things that will not make any visible difference to the team, the players, the play, the crowds, to anything remotely important to the fans.

Whatever Vancouver or Montreal could say in favour of this new league has to be put into question by the fact that they will be gone pretty soon and their committment to it in no way will be strong after that. You cannot argue that you are going to show this incredible support for a league you have your second team playing in, especially since 2nd teams in MLS are not important and there is no official acceptance from MLS of their importance or relevance, until now MLS has basically derided the concept. That is talking in merely hypothetical terms, it is like marrying a woman because you think that maybe she'll make a good mother-in-law for you future children when they grow up and get married in a few decades.

[Macksam]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I agree with Grizzly, as a Caps fan, the bias in favour of TOA and the extreme nature of the slagging of USL after it has served us a hell of a lot better than any other league in the continent for a good long time is underhanded and unjustified. The new league does not guarantee better attendance, or better quality play, or a stronger league, or more interesting rivals, or better marketing, or better any other abstract thing like "owner control" which is simply a euphemism for doing exactly the same thing as before except with maybe, possible, more say, but more say in things that will not make any visible difference to the team, the players, the play, the crowds, to anything remotely important to the fans.

Whatever Vancouver or Montreal could say in favour of this new league has to be put into question by the fact that they will be gone pretty soon and their committment to it in no way will be strong after that. You cannot argue that you are going to show this incredible support for a league you have your second team playing in, especially since 2nd teams in MLS are not important and there is no official acceptance from MLS of their importance or relevance, until now MLS has basically derided the concept. That is talking in merely hypothetical terms, it is like marrying a woman because you think that maybe she'll make a good mother-in-law for you future children when they grow up and get married in a few decades.

Well, they will use it for their reserve sides.

[Richard]

Vancouver and Montreal will not be 'gone pretty soon' as far as the TOA or USL is concerned. Provided MLS adjusts its rules appropriately which Bob Lenarduzzi has suggested he fully expects they will, the Whitecaps for one and I expect the Impact as well will continue to field teams in the TOA after their first teams have moved to MLS.

The Whitecaps are very involved with the USL at the PDL, W-League and Y-League levels and Lenarduzzi has said categorically they will continue with the USL. There are many reasons, some of which have not been spelled out publicly, for discontent of the TOA with the USL over USL-1 which has been rumbling under the public radar for a few years now. The 'surprise' sale of the organisation to NuRock without consulting member clubs and the apparent intransigence of NuRock over the concerns of those member clubs was the last straw and pushed the TOA to create their own Tier 2 league for their first teams.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Any league with reserve sides is automatically devalued in relation to teams playing their first teams. It is not like a 2nd division, it is worse. B teams are usually less competitive, often are unstable in terms of who plays, and are not conducive to fan interest.

I seriously doubt they will draw anywhere near the crowds you are talking about being minimum for a decent 2nd tier league: it does not happen anywhere, not reserve crowds in England, nor the "Amateur" teams in Germany, nor the B sides in Spain: bad crowds for teams devalued by the fans and of only relative worth for the first team, unless players can be moved from one to the other team easily: and how is MLS going to set that up? Will all MLS teams have the same set up, a return of the famous Reserve league in a TOA league, mixed in with half a dozen other legit 2nd tier teams? Pretty uninteresting as far as I see it.

[SthMelbRed]

The Whitecaps have always maintained that they'd be playing an U-23 side in USL-1 after the first team jumped to MLS. Is it uninteresting only because they'll not be part of USL-1, but rather the proposed new league now? If the primary motivation behind running the team is player development, will weak attendances matter? And if the Whitecaps' 'B' team is the only game in town in, let's say Edmonton or Kelowna, would they suffer the same as the Canucks' 'B' team does as the only game in town in Winnipeg? Football fans will come out to watch a good product if the experience is good and the quality is decent, even if there is a better product in another town or on TV.

[VPjr]

have you guys seen this?

http://ow.ly/E6iI

TOA might call their league NASL....

(props to leekoo over at Off The Pitch for posting this link)

[Macksam]

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

have you guys seen this?

http://ow.ly/E6iI

TOA might call their league NASL....

(props to leekoo over at Off The Pitch for posting this link)

Yeah, it's a good name imo.

[VPjr]

^ I love the idea of calling it NASL. would be a brilliant move in my view

[SthMelbRed]

^even better if they bring back the red, white, and blue star ball (or blue, blanc, et rouge etoile, if you're not Americanly inclined).

[Richard]

Something I suggested a while ago.

[Richard]

Something I suggested a while ago.

[VPjr]

^ clearly they were listening Richard...

[VPjr]

^ clearly they were listening Richard...

[ray]

So the USL has reacted to Tampa Bay and Baltimore's apparent switch with a statement saying that both clubs are contractually obligated to the USL pyramid for 2010. So it might be premature to start putting those sides in with TOA (or should that be NASL) for 2010.

http://usl1.uslsoccer.com/home/383511.html

“Both the Tampa Bay Rowdies and Crystal Palace Baltimore have contractual commitments to USL to play in the 2010 USL First Division (USL-1) season. USL will pursue all actions to protect its interests and those of the USL-1 teams from any breach of contract caused by Tampa and Baltimore.”

The odd bit is that the statement from USL says the CP Baltimore also has a commitment to USL 1st. Of course, they played last season as a 2nd division outfit and there was no indication they were moving up. Is this an error or can the USL force them to bolster their 1st division?

The situation changes day-to-day. It will be an interesting winter . The simplest solution is still for everyone to make up and settle things with some sort of mediated solution or arbitration. Promoting teams and expanding too quickly will likely result in failed franchises for both leagues. However, given the fighting words it may be too late to step back from the brink.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

USL is dumb. The teams just disband as enterprises and join the new league under another name. Or if not possible, threaten a counter suit because USL has not fulfilled their contractual obligations, only offering a devalued competition.

Anyone who thinks the division is good for North American soccer is nuts, it is terrible, a disaster. The best thing that could happen is a re-alliance under compromise arrangements, because otherwise we are talking about one or the other falling apart and failing within 3-5 years.

[brettinhalifax]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

USL is dumb. The teams just disband as enterprises and join the new league under another name. Or if not possible, threaten a counter suit because USL has not fulfilled their contractual obligations, only offering a devalued competition.

Possibly they field 2 teams, their "First team" plays in USL1 and the "Reserve side" plays in TOA.

Of course all the good players could play with the "Reserve side" and all the prospects could play of the "First team"

[brettinhalifax]

And now Charleston has stepped down to USL2

http://www.charlestonbattery.com/news.asp?y=2009&id=484&page=1

quote:In a continued effort to provide the Charleston community with an entertaining, successful and stable professional soccer team, the Charleston Battery will play in the United Soccer Leagues Second Division (USL2) for the 2010 season.

quote:USL1 will include at least the following teams for the 2010 season, Portland, Rochester, Puerto Rico, Austin and New York. Portland will be joining MLS in 2011.

A USL2 team press release naming only 5 USL1 teams! Wow.

[Calgary Boomer]

OUCH! There's one line in the press release that sounds contrary to what I'm hearing. The TOA establishment want a viable second teir league in North America, not a rival to MLS. Maybe when the TOA formed, they had visions of granduer in rivaling MLS, but that has since changed with Vancouver, Portland and soon to be confirmed Monteal joining.

[Vancouversoccerman]

quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer

OUCH! here's one line in the press release that sounds contrary to what I'm hearing. The TOA establishment want a viable second teir league in North America, not a rival to MLS. Maybe when the TOA formed, they had visions of granduer in rivaling MLS, but that has since changed with Vancouver, Portland and soon to be confirmed Monteal joining.

I asked someone at a high level in the TOA about this a few weeks back. While some owners had talked about challenging MLS in the months preceding this, they all strongly agree that they could never financially compete, and that it was a really bad idea. The D-II level is where this league plans on staying.