USL will it survive?

[rico]

with the USL desperate to keep its division 2 status has been aggressively expanding will it be enough?

so here we go!

Portland Timbers (Moving up to MLS)

Austin Aztex FC (USL alumni)

Puerto Rico Islanders (USL alumni)

Charleston Battery(USL alumni currently in USL-2)

Antigua Barracuda (Expansion 2011)

FC New York(Expansion 2011)

Orlando Pro Soccer(Expansion 2011)

San Diego Flash (Defunct team returned 2010 playing exhibition games league unknown)

[Alberto7]

My feeling is that USL Division 1 will disappear . I think any current USL1 team that doesn't join the NASL will go down to USL division 2 which will most likely be renamed USL Pro League or something to that effect. USL is very succesful in its developmental leagues. The pro league are more for prestige than anything else(in my opinion).

[rico]

Yes but at the same time they have a few more teams now do you think we may have 2 div 2 leagues?

[tmcmurph]

Both the USL and NASL are having problems. Costs are too high for a second division. The USL is almost all on east coast so let them be the east or NE and SE leagues. Have other teams join together by geographic region and focus on cities that don't and won't have MLS teams to compete with. You need to keep it a bus trip league. The winners play off for the championship.

That creates problems for the central and west because the area doesn't have the population density that the east does. Basically you have a eastern regional league (USL) and some scattered teams in the west. Any western team will cost more due to travel unless you can get other regions like NE, SE, N-central, S-central, NW & SW. Hard to see it surviving unless you find a lot of owners with deep pockets and a love of soccer.

[rico]

do you think they will stay as is but just welcome the new teams?

[the biologist]

There is a serious need for more teams out west. If there isn't more of them soon, the already existing/announced teams are simply doomed from scratch.

Central, Western & Pacific cities in 2012 (Year)

1. St. Louis (3rd)
   
2. Minnessota (3rd; 23rd considering the Thunder days)
   
3. Austin (4th)
   
4. Edmonton (2nd)
   
5. San Diego (Hypothetical 2nd; no deal for next year)
   

Looks pretty slim to me. Also, you get 3 teams up north while the other 2 are located down south. You get 3 central teams, 1 western team and 1 pacific team. So much for the traveling-friendly schedule. And when you say the Austin Aztex would be the veteran organiztion of such a western division with only 4 years of activity to show for, then we get a doomed league in the making.

Eastern cities in 2012 (Year)

1. Rochester (17th)
   
2. New York (2nd)
   
3. Baltimore (3rd; 6th overall)
   
4. Carolina (6th)
   
5. Atlanta (2nd; 18th overall)
   
6. Orlando (2nd)
   
7. Tampa Bay (3rd)
   
8. Miami (7th)
   
9. Puerto Rico (9th)
   
10. Antigua (2nd)
    

Charleston doesn't look to be interested in coming back to USLD1. I don't know rico if you heard something about that or you were just speculating about their possible return. For now, that makes a LOW 5/15 teams with more than 2 years of activity at the beginning of 2012 (why should we care after all since it's gonna be the end of the world by December of this year, the Maya and John Cusack told us). Austin will be at 3 complete years of activity, Carolina at 5, Miami at 6 and PR at 8. Then there's Rochester... Not really what we could call a strong league with well-established franchises for years.

So we get some fragile franchises on the east coast as well but at least there is twice the number of teams so it gives some room for failure, cause failure there will probably be, starting with Antigua. I mean, this ain't Puerto Rico. The Islanders play in Bayamón, a city with a population of 228,000, while the entire country of Antigua has a population of 86,000, of which only 31,000 are located in St. John's where the Barracuda will play. And it's even further from the mainland than PR. The only positives this team could bring is that it could allow the formation of two more geographically balanced divisions for the east coast in the eventuality of a success for survival of every possible team. We could see a "South Atlantic" division with the 3 Florida teams, PR and Antigua and a "North Atlantic" division with the remaining 5 teams.

I agree to say a 2nd division looks only viable from an east coast POV (sorry for the fellow V's from Edmonton). I can see St. Louis and SD failing miserably and there would be only Edmonton and Austin out west with Minny in the middle. Then that would mean more traveling for them thus increasing the costs, thus increasing the chance of one of these teams to fold and you've got a catch-22 scenario. In the East that's different. There's a good chance there will be enough teams to create 2 divisions and the proximity of cities within a division would be a huge plus. For exemple, yes Antigua is not that close to Orlando, but on the other hand they would have TB and Miami in their division thus considerably lowering the costs. There would be the Florida Derby, the Carribean Derby, the NY State Derby, while at the same time no such possibility is foreseeable in the west. If Calgary ever joins Edmonton, that would be a good start, but not enough in the end IMO.

Also, if some team in the east gets itself in financial trouble, it's gonna be way easier to find cities and potential owner groups to replace them than out west. There's Ottawa and Hamilton, and then ex-USLD1 cities like Charleston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Richmond. The geographical situation in a future eastern 2nd division will be more attractive than what we'll find in the west.

In the VERY best of all possible worlds, there would be five more teams for a total of 20. Then you make 2 10-team divisions (East & West) with an emphasis put on the regional rivalries/derbys. You take the best 4 from each division and play divisional semi-finals and finals, then it's East vs West in the final. NA (and now the Caribbean) is a pretty massive territory to cover compared to Europe/wherever else, so if this format works for the NHL and the NBA, I can't see a 2nd division in soccer succeed if it doesn't use this format. Or you could also split the teams in 4 divisions, like the 3 I created previously plus one more with the remaining five teams or something like that to lower the costs even more, and furthermore strengthen the rivalries to draw bigger crowds. There could be then divisional finals between the top 2 teams and then have a Final 4 (1 rep/division) with the seeding either decided on point totals or by simply having a draw.

[Blue and White Army]

I agree that second-division football is in a precarious situation on the western half of North America, even without the silly USL/NASL split.

The MLS' gain is the second division's loss. After Vancouver and Portland are promoted to MLS next year, I doubt we'll see any USL-1/NASL clubs in the Cascadia region (what some Yanks refer to as the "Pacific Northwest") for quite some time. We'll have three (Vancouver, Seattle, Portland) MLS clubs within a driving distance of 6.5 hours (not including border-crossing time), and there are already heaps of PDL clubs in the region. Arguably, per capita, there are more footie clubs in Cascadia than anywhere else in North America.

If the second division is going to work on the west coast, I think it will need to come from California. Cali has the most population density of the west coast, yet only has MLS (3) and PDL (7) clubs at the moment - no NASL, USL-1, or USL-2 clubs.

I think cities like Fresno (currently PDL, pop. 502,303, no major-league sports clubs), Long Beach (no footie club, pop. 494,709, no major-league sports clubs, pro. baseball club didn't play in 2010), Sacramento (NPSL and WPSL footie clubs, pop. 486,189, has an NBA club), and possibly even Santa Ana (Santa Ana College are the big soccer draw, pop. 357,754, no major-league sports clubs) could support USL-1/NASL fairly well. Haven't looked into suitable stadia, though.

From there, possibly Tucson, Arizona (no footie clubs but has men's/women's metro leagues, pop. 541,811, no major-league sports clubs); Mesa, Arizona (pop. 460,000 - more than Miami, St. Louis or Oakland; can't find any pro sports clubs in any sport); or Reno, Nevada (no footie club, pop. 310,000 including Sparks, no major-league sports clubs).

[SCF08]

I read this on the Dayton Dutch Lions website:

''The Dutch Lions Football Club, in association with the Dayton Dutch Lions FC, announced earlier today its promotion to the USL-Pro Championship Division (former USL-2)''

At a live press conference in Dayton, the Dutch Lions FC front office lead an exciting event in front of the Dayton-area press and local city leaders to explain the role in which the Dutch Lions will continue to build for soccer in not only Ohio, but across the U.S.

''The promotion for the Dayton Dutch Lions into the Pro-Championship Division (3rd tier) will be an exciting development for the club, as it will face several of the top 3rd Division clubs across the U.S. including the Charleston Battery and the Charlotte Eagles.''

“The promotion of Dayton Dutch Lions to USL-2 and the addition of a W-League team is the logical next step for one of the more progressive soccer clubs in North America,” USL President Tim Holt said. “Building upon their 2010 season PDL success and the support of technical partner FC Twente, these teams instantly enhance the quality of USL-2 and the W-League for 2011 and beyond.”

“The promotion to USL-2 and development of a W-League club was just a matter of time,” Mossel said. “To be the best, we must begin to play among the upper-echelon clubs. We want to set a standard, and I believe we have done that so far in the PDL in our first season. But more importantly, our decision was made with our Premier Academy in mind,” explained the Dutch Lions co-owner.

Owner Erick Tammer said this is the most crucial ingredient for success. “The Dutch Lions FC is a gateway to professional soccer,” Tammer said. “For us to say this we must provide the best environment and training possible here in the U.S., and thanks to USL, players are inevitably going to see that vision become a reality.”

http://www.dutchlionsfc.com/cms/index.php/home

[Blue and White Army]

Apparently several clubs (including Kitsap Pumas of the PDL) are meeting on Tuesday to discuss the viability of forming a USL-2 division on the west coast. I would assume Victoria Highlanders are a part of such discussions.

If this goes ahead, and the NASL/USL tiff gets sorted out, USL-2 might be a better option for Edmonton than NASL/USL-1.

[Soccerpro]

The USL-1 is turning into a unsustainable money losing disaster for some isolated teams with expansion into the caribbean and many of the teams now based in the U.S Southeast. If Edmonton wants to survive next year, it needs to rethink the NASL and join a regional league. The travel costs are simply unsustainable.

[jloome]

The USL-1 is turning into a unsustainable money losing disaster for some isolated teams with expansion into the caribbean and many of the teams now based in the U.S Southeast. If Edmonton wants to survive next year, it needs to rethink the NASL and join a regional league. The travel costs are simply unsustainable.

With their current model yes. But both leagues (USL and NASL) are doing a terrible job of both promotion and organization. They could easily, in a properly capitalized and promoted league, regionalize as many travel loops as possible, and have airline and travel sponsorship, to help cut down costs.

But these things require real work, not schmoozing. I wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon. Both divisions are doomed.

[ted]

...both leagues (USL and NASL) are doing a terrible job of both promotion and organization.

Lets be fair. They were hamstrung by the no-win compromise dictated by US Soccer. If one had been allowed to die the other would have had free reign to organise and market properly. As it is they had to spend large amounts of time and effort explaining WTF was going on to fans and media outlets.

The sooner the North American division two question is settled the sooner we can make sense of all this.

[jloome]

Lets be fair. They were hamstrung by the no-win compromise dictated by US Soccer. If one had been allowed to die the other would have had free reign to organise and market properly. As it is they had to spend large amounts of time and effort explaining WTF was going on to fans and media outlets.

The sooner the North American division two question is settled the sooner we can make sense of all this.

That's hardly the issue at all! The level of promotion these clubs are pursuing in their own communities is insufficient to attract serious professional soccer fans.

That's what soccer is competing against in north America: itself, and the image people see elsehwere in the soccer world.

People promoting it need to do as much as possible to add a sheen to the product off the field, to complement and enhance what relatively little it can provide on the field.

If you don't have:

1. A top-quality website, with forums, early

2. A stadium development plan, early.

3. A regional rival

4. A population base

....you won't survive as a professional club, period. All of these things, for the most part, have been ignored by NASL/USL. Their sites have been poor-to-mediocre, they're MASSIVELY underestimating the need to get off throwball lines into a confined stadium, they haven't tapped regional rivalries sufficiently and they haven't figured out how to market to the multiple segments within their population base.

[strobe_z]

My biggest problem with most of the arguments presented as to why the NASL/USL will fall is that it seems a no-win situation... and I refuse to believe that. While I understand the reasoning behind regional leagues being the best option given travel concerns. To me that is really more likely to be a Div. 3 scenario. Speaking from the Edmonton perspective, you will get near enough to zero support for a team in a regional league here so as not to be worth the bother. Edmonton is one of the top 5 cities in Canada in terms of population, and the people here expect to be in the "big league" or at worst, the next one down. I'm no great fan of baseball, but I'm pretty sure the last time anyway cared about Baseball in Edmonton we still had a AAA league team.

If the NASL/USL can get their acts together to put together a solid Div. 2, I don't see any reason that it couldn't be successful. If we could get NASL teams in at least some of Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Hamilton, along with some USA B-level cities I think that would strike a happy medium between costs/fan support. That kind of league, with V-cup matches against the "Big Three" should be more than marketable.

I do agree with jloome that this would require a lot of planning and work though.

[jloome]

My biggest problem with most of the arguments presented as to why the NASL/USL will fall is that it seems a no-win situation... and I refuse to believe that. While I understand the reasoning behind regional leagues being the best option given travel concerns. To me that is really more likely to be a Div. 3 scenario. Speaking from the Edmonton perspective, you will get near enough to zero support for a team in a regional league here so as not to be worth the bother. Edmonton is one of the top 5 cities in Canada in terms of population, and the people here expect to be in the "big league" or at worst, the next one down. I'm no great fan of baseball, but I'm pretty sure the last time anyway cared about Baseball in Edmonton we still had a AAA league team.

If the NASL/USL can get their acts together to put together a solid Div. 2, I don't see any reason that it couldn't be successful. If we could get NASL teams in at least some of Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Hamilton, along with some USA B-level cities I think that would strike a happy medium between costs/fan support. That kind of league, with V-cup matches against the "Big Three" should be more than marketable.

I do agree with jloome that this would require a lot of planning and work though.

I think your optimism is unfounded, Strobe, as much as I'd like to agree. The dozen or so in your supporters' group so far speaks directly to how much the "diehard local" impacts things. They need to attract the fans who want a class product.

With soccer, that's the majority, and they're not going to take a team playing at Foote Field seriously. Having business partners who think allowing in teams from tiny carribean nations or small American centres won't help their cause either.

There's a mindset they have to reflect, and they're just not doing it. Blind optimism still won't help you steer around a corner, although I admire the spirit.

[alberta white]

^ Judging by Edmontons results so far (yes i know its mostly against development teams) the green shoots of a quality product may well be in there.

But having what amounts to an offshoot of the House of Bougia running the local soccer association ain't helping none!

Having unitedcycle in FC Edmontons corner is a good promotional move. Go get your new stick for the coming Hockey season...Oh and by the way would sir be intrested in watching a game of real 3D soccer for $20 ?.

Anyone who dosen't know UC in Edmonton is either a newbie or ...not actually in Edmonton.

I've even seen FCE been promoted on local Hockey sites. Yes that right Hockey forums. Its usually met with a 'WTF! we got a pro-soccer team?' but to the most part its supportive and intrested (suprise, the games ain't mutualy exclusive to many (most) under 40)

But Jloome has the main nail well and truly in the cross hairs of his hammer. Foote just dosen't look the part. Its not the football lines that get me however and to have played 2 and won 2 in front of about 5000 from a possible gate of 7000 is not a bad return.

Its the distance of the stands away from the touchline. Some energy has got to be expelled in addressing the issue of the grass banking on the north and east sides.

Still If the club could nail the Local CBC or CTV etc down to a (late night) highlights package off the back of the World Cup, then who knows what could happen next year?

[strobe_z]

The problem with both hills behind the nets is that the U of A won't allow anyone in the endzones to be on the turf. That's understandable because they killed a lot of artificial Christmas trees to make that pitch... But the hills behind them are so far away from the pitch you'd need binoculars.

Foote field is a terrible place to play... No question. But it really is just about the only option. No one is going to sink money into a stadium before the team proves sustainable though.

I'm not sure what FCE's projected numbers are, but I hope that have to be relatively pleased. If you break it down game by game:

vs. Montreal - about 2500

vs. Colo colo - about 5000

vs. Ottawa - about 2300

obviously they overestimated how many Chilean "fans" would show up on father's day, but I think the hometown crowd was roughly 2000 as well. Sure they were disappointed in the meager turn out for Vitoria/Colo-Colo but that's not really going to draw a home crowd if the hometown team isn't playing... And the Chilean fans already "did their thing".

We'll see what Portouth draws, but those numbers are never going to translate into fans for the NASL opposition. It should be treated more like a marketing event to get the word out.

If FCE can keep a steady attendance above 2000 for the domestic games this year, if they're being realistic, they should be happy. The real test will be the last two games in august because I believe they're going head to head against the Eskimos (vs. Calgary and Sask.). That's really poor scheduling, but if they can pass that test the future will look brighter.

[the biologist]

The real test will be the last two games in august because I believe they're going head to head against the Eskimos (vs. Calgary and Sask.). That's really poor scheduling, but if they can pass that test the future will look brighter.

They won't.

I mean, FCE vs the Eskies ? Really ? That's a no contest. That's too early for this kind of match up and that will not help their cause at all, every media outlet will be so happy to blast soccer's popularity when compared to the real thing. In fact they'll probably talk more about that than the game itself, which is sad but true. We're in Canada after all. Sorry but I just went through the entire "TSN's The Reporters" thread and posted my opinion as well so that's the mood I'm in at this moment...

[jloome]

The problem with both hills behind the nets is that the U of A won't allow anyone in the endzones to be on the turf. That's understandable because they killed a lot of artificial Christmas trees to make that pitch... But the hills behind them are so far away from the pitch you'd need binoculars.

Foote field is a terrible place to play... No question. But it really is just about the only option. No one is going to sink money into a stadium before the team proves sustainable though.

I'm not sure what FCE's projected numbers are, but I hope that have to be relatively pleased. If you break it down game by game:

vs. Montreal - about 2500

vs. Colo colo - about 5000

vs. Ottawa - about 2300

obviously they overestimated how many Chilean "fans" would show up on father's day, but I think the hometown crowd was roughly 2000 as well. Sure they were disappointed in the meager turn out for Vitoria/Colo-Colo but that's not really going to draw a home crowd if the hometown team isn't playing... And the Chilean fans already "did their thing".

We'll see what Portouth draws, but those numbers are never going to translate into fans for the NASL opposition. It should be treated more like a marketing event to get the word out.

If FCE can keep a steady attendance above 2000 for the domestic games this year, if they're being realistic, they should be happy. The real test will be the last two games in august because I believe they're going head to head against the Eskimos (vs. Calgary and Sask.). That's really poor scheduling, but if they can pass that test the future will look brighter.

There are multiple other options. They just require more work.

For example, Foote has a fully grass pitch on the other side. If it's not in use for track during the season -- and with University out for most, I would suspect that's the case -- then why not put temporary bleachers on all sides, right up on the track to field-side?

It would cost quite a bit more. But this is a question of organizational priorities, and they seem to me to have a lot of staff producing relatively little. Some of that money would have been better used creating an ideal environment.

Or, if that proves unviable for some reason, approach the city about converting clark by adding in full grandstand seating and grass, for free, in exchange for long-term first call on use or a lease-per-game priority arrangement. There are already two other practice fields there the Eskimos can use, and Commonwealth itself now has the same artificial surface as clark.

Given its inner-city location, its short connection via both forms of transit, its parking and the fact that it already has a facia that looks somewhat like a proper football stadium, it seems an ideal conversion. And given that the team owner owns a construction company.....

Anyway, the point is there are other innovations. They just cost more than Foote, and right now the team's budget is not being spent wisely. Hell, for the money they've blown on these ridiculous international friendies, they could have paid for the full bleacher layout at Foote's grass park right up until they break ground on their own field!.

Given that the one, very shallow, bleacher on the grass side can already accomodate 800, it's easy to see how they could get it up to 5,000 by adding tall seating all the way around. It's even connected directly to a concourse, for ease of concessions.

[fishman]

I don't know how many of you have seen / seen pictures of Morrison Stadium in Omaha, Nebraska. Soccer-specific, it is on the campus of Creighton University. It has a capacity of 6,000ish, I believe. Its physical footprint, for your review, would fit on two of the four fields at Millennium Place in Sherwood Park, AB...I know because I dropped each satellite image on one another (yes, the scales were correct-ish...)

I continuously reference Millennium because of the following:

• It has ample parking and is well-positioned just off Yellowhead Trail and Hwy 216 / Anthony Henday...it, however, lacks good public transportation links;

• It has two 5 v 5 indoor soccer fields for off-season use / CMISL-crossover potential...

• It has good workout facilities, including weights, cardio-equipment, indoor track, gymnasium, swimming pool;

• On-site physiotherapy;

• It was loved by River Plate when they were here, so much so that Colo-Colo was encouraged to come here and use it for a 1-week training camp.

So, if the location was good enough for two prominent, internationally-respected South American sides, why not FC Edmonton?

Some links to good soccer-specific stadiums:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Stadium

WakeMed Soccer Park in Cary, North Carolina... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WakeMed_Soccer_Park

Of importance is the price tag...both had costs right around $14M USD. Others in the 3,000 capacity range usually cost $7M USD. Battery Park (Blackbaud Stadium) cost $6M USD in 1999, and seats 5,100.

[strobe_z]

There are multiple other options. They just require more work.

For example, Foote has a fully grass pitch on the other side. If it's not in use for track during the season -- and with University out for most, I would suspect that's the case -- then why not put temporary bleachers on all sides, right up on the track to field-side?

It would cost quite a bit more. But this is a question of organizational priorities, and they seem to me to have a lot of staff producing relatively little. Some of that money would have been better used creating an ideal environment.

Or, if that proves unviable for some reason, approach the city about converting clark by adding in full grandstand seating and grass, for free, in exchange for long-term first call on use or a lease-per-game priority arrangement. There are already two other practice fields there the Eskimos can use, and Commonwealth itself now has the same artificial surface as clark.

Given its inner-city location, its short connection via both forms of transit, its parking and the fact that it already has a facia that looks somewhat like a proper football stadium, it seems an ideal conversion. And given that the team owner owns a construction company.....

Anyway, the point is there are other innovations. They just cost more than Foote, and right now the team's budget is not being spent wisely. Hell, for the money they've blown on these ridiculous international friendies, they could have paid for the full bleacher layout at Foote's grass park right up until they break ground on their own field!.

Given that the one, very shallow, bleacher on the grass side can already accomodate 800, it's easy to see how they could get it up to 5,000 by adding tall seating all the way around. It's even connected directly to a concourse, for ease of concessions.

I'm not really saying there aren't other options, just that they all have their downsides as well. I watched the Aviators games on the grass side of Foote field and it was pretty terrible... and I wandered over there during the half-time break at the Montreal game and it looks even worse than I remembered it. The built-in side only seats 1,500 and I'm not entirely sure if the U of A would okay putting up stands on the other. Even if they would, I remember the grass field being quite short for a soccer pitch... and it's not really anything more than a swath of uneven grass it's not a proper soccer pitch either. The other thing is that when arriving early for both Foote Field games, there were PLENTY of people using the running track. Perhaps the U of A was more willing to lease out an unused gridiron field than the one being used by Athletics. I'm not sure... just a guess.

My preference is for a repurposed (or is that de-purposed?) Clarke stadium. I totally agree that would be the ideal location, it makes sense for the city and the construction could be minimal at first... but that takes some negotiations. I would vote for this option for next year if possible, but having this established between February (when the team was announced) and May/June simply isn't realistic. If FCE was smart, this would be the top priority for next year.... a plan that could be built on as the team grows and stabalizes. You start out getting the okay from the city, you put up temporary bleachers (and maybe a fence to keep the non-paying customers out.... I remember beachesl bringing his own lawn chair for an Aviators game once... . Then you could build permanent grandstands on either side.... etc. Until you have a proper stadium. Hell, I'm even willing to go with the field turf that's already there as long as there's no grin iron lines on it.

[jloome]

My preference is for a repurposed (or is that de-purposed?) Clarke stadium. I totally agree that would be the ideal location, it makes sense for the city and the construction could be minimal at first... but that takes some negotiations. I would vote for this option for next year if possible, but having this established between February (when the team was announced) and May/June simply isn't realistic. If FCE was smart, this would be the top priority for next year.... a plan that could be built on as the team grows and stabalizes. You start out getting the okay from the city, you put up temporary bleachers (and maybe a fence to keep the non-paying customers out.... I remember beachesl bringing his own lawn chair for an Aviators game once... . Then you could build permanent grandstands on either side.... etc. Until you have a proper stadium. Hell, I'm even willing to go with the field turf that's already there as long as there's no grin iron lines on it.

Makes sense to me.

[rico]

does anyone know if Vancouver will stay in the league there has been rumors that the will

[strobe_z]

I doubt it. They were originally looking to turn over their NASL team to an Edmonton ownership group (at least that was the rumour), but didn't. I'm hoping they'll invest their Div. 2 know-how into another market... Victoria makes a certain amount of sense one would think. If we could get Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary in Div. 2 that would go a long way towards stability.

[rico]

But the PDL team is in Victoria do you think they will move up or just move up to USL-2