http://www.capradio.org/articles/2014/12/02/sac-republic-fc-push-for-bonney-field-expansion/
http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2014/11/26/mls-expansion-minneapolis-las-vegas-sacramento-don-garber
Sacramento is an interesting choice for an MLS team. Well also according to the article by Sports illustrated The San Jose Earthquakes will oppose the move for ticket sales reasons at Levi's stadium.
I didn't know they had any more expansion teams to offer, because I thought when they killed off Chivas USA, they just decided to add another team to LA. As if they deserve another team.
If Minneapolis gets a team, I would hope they name it the Minnesota Kicks (or the Strikers), in honor of the NASL teams that played there.
Quote from: DandyDan on December 03, 2014, 07:33:56 PM
If Minneapolis gets a team, I would hope they name it the Minnesota Kicks (or the Strikers), in honor of the NASL teams that played there.
I like the sound of that!
It'd be interesting to see if Vegas can support a professional franchise. There has been talk of it numerous times from the NBA to the NFL, but I don't see it happening. More of a place to go and play, not catch a sporting event.
Quote from: DandyDan on December 03, 2014, 07:33:56 PM
I didn't know they had any more expansion teams to offer, because I thought when they killed off Chivas USA, they just decided to add another team to LA. As if they deserve another team.
If Minneapolis gets a team, I would hope they name it the Minnesota Kicks (or the Strikers), in honor of the NASL teams that played there.
The L.A. team, at least provisionally called "LAFC", will start in 2017. As far as the Minnesota situation, there were apparently two groups in the running for that: the current Minnesota United FC of the second-tier NASL, and a group led by some Vikings owners or some such. Not sure if they'd have resurrected one of the old NASL I monikers like you had suggested.
As a former Sac State student, I'm very happy Sacramento Republic FC has gotten off the ground in the USL. I was a bit surprised they were chasing an MLS berth so hard, but I imagine they can do it.
Quote from: DandyDan on December 03, 2014, 07:33:56 PM
I didn't know they had any more expansion teams to offer, because I thought when they killed off Chivas USA, they just decided to add another team to LA. As if they deserve another team.
If Minneapolis gets a team, I would hope they name it the Minnesota Kicks (or the Strikers), in honor of the NASL teams that played there.
and not FC FC FC
Agreed! lol
I've been following the Sounders since about 1995; I think they were A-League back then. They went all those years without an "FC", and then Drew Carey and his ownership group comes in, and boom, "Seattle Sounders FC", or "Sounders FC" for short (personally, I hate how "FC" is left on for the short form of Sounders, as well as the Timbers and Whitecaps, and now countless lower league teams, including the aforementioned Minnesota United FC).
Chi Fire :)
Even though we've been mehhhhh
What about the Fire?
Update: Minneapolis-St. Paul was granted a MLS team, but no word on Sacramento or Las Vegas. They had semi-pro teams: the Sacramento Republic FC; and in the 1990s, the Las Vegas Dustdevils in an indoor soccer league. Surprisingly, Tulsa OK was a candidate for a MLS team, but they weren't granted the franchise. The MLS expands to 28 teams with a new one in L.A. to replace the folded Chivas USA and new ones in New York (not the Red Bulls), Orlando, and soon in Atlanta.
My Major League Soccer alignment...24 teams (4 expansion), but expected to grow further in the decade.
EASTERN (no divisions for some reason)
Atlanta, Chicago, Columbus, DC (Washington), Miami (debut 2018), Montreal, New England, New York, New York Red Bulls, Orlando, Philadelphia, Toronto.
WESTERN (same as above)
Colorado, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, LA Galaxy, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Portland, Salt Lake, San Jose, Seattle, Vancouver.
Possible expansion sites (they have pro soccer teams not in MLS): Charleston SC (known for their Battery team), Metro Detroit (they had the Neon and Safari teams) and Tampa-St. Petersburg (known for their Rowdies team and the MLS Mutiny) in Eastern, and Las Vegas, Sacramento and Tulsa in Western.
Please not Sacramento. There is way too much sports in California and the bay area already has a team. The few MLS fans that live there can just drive in hour west and see professional soccer in San Jose.
Sacramento is quite far from San Jose, and an hour is not feasible in most traffic conditions. Sacramento is also a pretty large media market on its own and has an existing and successful lower-league team.
I say give them a team. They're leagues ahead of Miami and Las Vegas in having existing support.
Sacramento can barely support the Kings, I don't see why there's a perception that MLS would help 180 sports in that city. I mean, I like Sac, but it is not a sports town. Sports just provide a venue for local corporate employee appreciation events. As soon as the Kings have a decent season, they're probably gone.
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
Please not Sacramento. There is way too much sports in California and the bay area already has a team. The few MLS fans that live there can just drive in hour west and see professional soccer in San Jose.
First, San Jose and Sacramento are 120 miles apart. Factor in traffic and it's a two-hour-plus drive.
Second, since you made a similar comment in another thread, what's your basis for saying California has too many teams? The data doesn't back you up: California has four of the 25 largest markets - so based on numbers alone, if a league has 30-32 teams, California should have four of them - and indeed, between the big four leagues, California has 16 teams.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 17, 2016, 02:12:45 AM
As soon as the Kings have a decent season, they're probably gone.
Were you around in the early 2000s when the Kings were one of the best (no rings notwithstanding) and most exciting teams in the league? Sacramento was a great basketball city then, but over a decade of mediocrity (at best) has soured the mood - if they had been even mildly competitive during the last ten years, you'd still see tremendous fan support. For comparison, it's easy to say a new (but much smaller) market like Oklahoma City is a "better" sports town, but they had the novelty of their first team, and then a very competitive product on the floor (with a couple of superstars) for several years. Put the Thunder through ten years like the Kings have had and see what the atmosphere is like.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 17, 2016, 03:13:17 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
Please not Sacramento. There is way too much sports in California and the bay area already has a team. The few MLS fans that live there can just drive in hour west and see professional soccer in San Jose.
First, San Jose and Sacramento are 120 miles apart. Factor in traffic and it's a two-hour-plus drive.
Second, since you made a similar comment in another thread, what's your basis for saying California has too many teams? The data doesn't back you up: California has four of the 25 largest markets - so based on numbers alone, if a league has 30-32 teams, California should have four of them - and indeed, between the big four leagues, California has 16 teams.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 17, 2016, 02:12:45 AM
As soon as the Kings have a decent season, they're probably gone.
Were you around in the early 2000s when the Kings were one of the best (no rings notwithstanding) and most exciting teams in the league? Sacramento was a great basketball city then, but over a decade of mediocrity (at best) has soured the mood - if they had been even mildly competitive during the last ten years, you'd still see tremendous fan support. For comparison, it's easy to say a new (but much smaller) market like Oklahoma City is a "better" sports town, but they had the novelty of their first team, and then a very competitive product on the floor (with a couple of superstars) for several years. Put the Thunder through ten years like the Kings have had and see what the atmosphere is like.
Website I visited put San Diego at 28, not that that changes your point. I'm waiting for Texas to get its fair share of teams.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 17, 2016, 03:13:17 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 15, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
Please not Sacramento. There is way too much sports in California and the bay area already has a team. The few MLS fans that live there can just drive in hour west and see professional soccer in San Jose.
First, San Jose and Sacramento are 120 miles apart. Factor in traffic and it's a two-hour-plus drive.
Totally agree with you. No one is driving from Sac to San Jose to see an Earthquakes game. Giants or 49ers, maybe. It's easy to look at the cities on a map and think that they're connected, but actually driving and being familiar with I-80 between Oakland and Sacramento, you would understand why it takes a lot more to get people into the Bay Area from there.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 17, 2016, 03:13:17 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 17, 2016, 02:12:45 AM
As soon as the Kings have a decent season, they're probably gone.
Were you around in the early 2000s when the Kings were one of the best (no rings notwithstanding) and most exciting teams in the league? Sacramento was a great basketball city then, but over a decade of mediocrity (at best) has soured the mood - if they had been even mildly competitive during the last ten years, you'd still see tremendous fan support. For comparison, it's easy to say a new (but much smaller) market like Oklahoma City is a "better" sports town, but they had the novelty of their first team, and then a very competitive product on the floor (with a couple of superstars) for several years. Put the Thunder through ten years like the Kings have had and see what the atmosphere is like.
I would bring up OKC as an example as well. I think you're going to see exactly what happened in Sacramento happen there now that Kevin Durant is gone. The novelty is going to wear off when they start losing. Same thing happened in Charlotte, and I think Memphis will go the same way in a few more years. In terms of smaller cities with the only pro team an NBA franchise, Salt Lake is the big exception, but there's such a large regional population there with no competing teams and a demographic that's open to basketball and willing to pay for it.
I definitely remember when the Kings were good and how excited Sacramento was to have a winning basketball team. But it comes down to support through the hard times, and Sac has already failed that test. I was genuinely surprised when they finally settled the arena issue. I always thought Seattle was a little bit of a long-shot, but I also thought it was just a matter of the right group coming forward with the right deal at the right time, but that just happened to be for keeping them there. Maybe the new arena will keep everyone happy for a while. I'd actually go to a game up there because I think the neighborhood has a lot of potential, in stark contrast to where the Warriors are now.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 18, 2016, 07:15:47 PM
I definitely remember when the Kings were good and how excited Sacramento was to have a winning basketball team. But it comes down to support through the hard times, and Sac has already failed that test. I was genuinely surprised when they finally settled the arena issue. I always thought Seattle was a little bit of a long-shot, but I also thought it was just a matter of the right group coming forward with the right deal at the right time, but that just happened to be for keeping them there. Maybe the new arena will keep everyone happy for a while. I'd actually go to a game up there because I think the neighborhood has a lot of potential, in stark contrast to where the Warriors are now.
In terms of failing the test re: the bad times - I should have expanded on my point: in between the four or five good/great seasons was 13 years of poor play before and 13 years of poor play after. I think that would be hard to sustain fan interest in any market. Yeah, Salt Lake City has been an exception for small-market teams, but the Jazz have been to the playoffs in 25 of their 37 years there, including 20 seasons in a row, and they had two of the all-time great players for much of that time - they've built up the goodwill to sustain them for quite a long dry spell (even with no rings) - something the Kings certainly have not been able to do.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Group-Holds-Rally-San-Diego-Plans-Stadium-412189083.html
Now San Diego is fighting to for an MLS team.
MLS has set tomorrow (1/31) as the deadline for cities to submit bids for the next round of expansion. The League has announced that they want to eventually get to 28 teams, and that they plan to announce 2 of the new franchises this year (that will begin play by 2020)
A lot of cities have shown interest (at varying degrees of seriousness) in pursuing an MLS franchise, such as Sacramento, St. Louis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Nashville, Detroit, St. Petersburg, San Antonio, Charlotte, Las Vegas and Oklahoma City.
Will be interesting to see where the league expands in the coming years.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 17, 2016, 02:12:45 AM
Sacramento can barely support the Kings, I don't see why there's a perception that MLS would help 180 sports in that city. I mean, I like Sac, but it is not a sports town. Sports just provide a venue for local corporate employee appreciation events. As soon as the Kings have a decent season, they're probably gone.
Right which is why I have always thought the Kings should be in KC. Sacramento is as far from San Jose as Milwaukee is from Green Bay and lots of fans from Milwaukee are willing to drive up for a Packer game. We don't need all these teams in California they have got enough sports as it is.
There are 12 cities that have officially had prospective owners submit bids for MLS expansion:
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Detroit
Indianapolis
Nashville
Phoenix
Raleigh/Durham
Sacramento
San Antonio
San Diego
St. Louis
Tampa/St. Petersburg
There are 4 spots available. Franchises 25 & 26 will be announced by the end of the year, and the timing of the choice for franchises 27 & 28 will also be set by the end of the year. (Franchise 24 is the Miami project, which is still not quite official yet)
Quote from: bing101 on January 30, 2017, 08:18:25 PM
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Group-Holds-Rally-San-Diego-Plans-Stadium-412189083.html
Now San Diego is fighting to for an MLS team.
Apparently San Diego is also a bargaining chip city for the Raiders not just the MLS.
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2017, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: bing101 on January 30, 2017, 08:18:25 PM
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Group-Holds-Rally-San-Diego-Plans-Stadium-412189083.html
Now San Diego is fighting to for an MLS team.
Apparently San Diego is also a bargaining chip city for the Raiders not just the MLS.
Yeah right they ran one team out of town and now they want another one. Not unles they are willing to build a new stadium and they already blew it last fall.
Quote from: bing101 on December 03, 2014, 10:58:59 AMThe San Jose Earthquakes will oppose the move for ticket sales reasons at Levi's stadium.
Understandable when it's League 2 Leyton Orient opposing the move of a Premier League team (both Tottenham and West Ham's moves were opposed by Orient, the latter being more serious a threat, the former being seen as more rude as it was far more a crossing into someone else's patch) moving to the Olympic Stadium just under 2 miles away from their ground*. But we're talking about 2 cities 120 miles apart and teams playing the same level of football! The middle locations are 50 minutes freeway drive away, not 50 minutes walk away with faster modes available - like, say Arsenal and West Ham (it's 5 miles from the Emirates to the Olympic stadium).
And that's before we look at Anfield being 3/4 of a mile from Goodison Park, the two Dundee clubs being in almost adjacent stadiums, the many teams that groundshare (Rome, Milan and Munich doing so with two high-pedigree clubs) - something that happens in the US with the Giants and the Jets.
In Europe, pretty much every million+ city (and many with smaller populations) has at least two top-level pro-soccer teams, and maybe even a lower-level one as well (eg Tranmere for the Merseyside conurbation) - and obviously London has umpteen pro-soccer teams in its urban area (off the top of my head, 15 fully-professional teams). Surely, allowing for differing geographies and support of soccer, the US can manage with two MLS franchises over 100 miles apart from each other without complaints of interfering with market?
Also, local rivalries bring out the fans and gets them to the game - OK, the Manchester and Liverpool clubs see games against the big London clubs (Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, who also have their rivalries amongst themselves) as big guaranteed sell-out games too, but the intra-city derbies as well as the games between the clubs of the two cities (especially Man U and Liverpool) that are 30 miles apart are the games that the fans care about the most and want to attend the most.
*White Hart Lane is 4.6 miles from Orient's ground, and the Boleyn Ground was 3.6 miles, so the effect was already in existence to an extent.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 04, 2017, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2017, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: bing101 on January 30, 2017, 08:18:25 PM
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Group-Holds-Rally-San-Diego-Plans-Stadium-412189083.html (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Group-Holds-Rally-San-Diego-Plans-Stadium-412189083.html)
Now San Diego is fighting to for an MLS team.
Apparently San Diego is also a bargaining chip city for the Raiders not just the MLS.
Yeah right they ran one team out of town and now they want another one. Not unles they are willing to build a new stadium and they already blew it last fall.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Raiders-Fact-or-Fiction-412490483.html
Apparently San Diego is a bargaining chip city for both the MLS and Raiders.
San Diego doesn't deserve any more sports teams. They lost the Clippers in the 80's and now the Chargers that should send a message that San Diego is not a sports town. Not to mention the fans there acted like little children when the Chargers left. I say this story is fiction.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 06, 2017, 11:03:00 AM
San Diego doesn't deserve any more sports teams. They lost he Clippers in the 80's and now the Chargers that should send a message that San Diego is not a sports town. Not to mention the fans there acted like little children when the Chargers left. I say this story is fiction.
Oh yeah because the Padres don't exist.
San Diego also lost the Rockets in the 70s, which is a much better fit for Houston anyway.
IMHO,
- Soccer is the sport of the next generation. Four generations and counting. Why any city would spend any money on such is not understandable. Further the langage of "being granted" a franchise, with a 40 year history of bankrupt teams and bankrupt leagues seems arrogant.
- San Diego, as the saying goes, is surrounded. By the ocean to the west, Mexico to the south, unhabitable desert to the east, and the Dodgers to the north. San Diego is not the worst sports town. Issue is the weather is perfect most all the time, which obviates spending money to go to ballgames, and a big part of the population is in the Navy and retains home area loyalties.
Quote from: Alps on February 06, 2017, 08:06:07 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 06, 2017, 11:03:00 AM
San Diego doesn't deserve any more sports teams. They lost he Clippers in the 80's and now the Chargers that should send a message that San Diego is not a sports town. Not to mention the fans there acted like little children when the Chargers left. I say this story is fiction.
Oh yeah because the Padres don't exist.
I said they don't deserve any more sports team. I know the Padres are already there but they don't deserve a MLS team or another NFL team another NBA team ect. San Diego is not much of a sports town they have lost 3 major league teams as is and after thier fans had temper tantrums after losing the Chargers I have zero sympathy for that city and besides there is already plenty of sports in southern California in the greater Los Angeles area.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Major_League_Soccer_club_locations_2017.png/500px-Major_League_Soccer_club_locations_2017.png)
Going by a purely geographic stance of wanting to see the league spread across all regions and light up as many states on the above map as possible, the 4 cities (from the the 12 that have bid) I'd like to see get added are:
Phoenix - puts Arizona on the map
St. Louis - puts Missouri back on the map for the first time since KC's team moved to the Kansas side of the metro in 2008
Charlotte (or) Raleigh - need NC to fill in a gap on the east coast, potential rival for Atlanta
Detroit (or) Indianapolis - either one would add another Midwest state would give Chicago and Columbus another rival
then the next 4 (since it seems somewhat likely the league will at some point reach 32 teams)
Detroit (or) Indianapolis - whichever was left out of my first 4
Nashville - last one left that adds a new state
Sacramento - has shown much enthusiasm for a team, gives NorCal and SoCal 2 teams each (LA has a 2nd team starting in 2018)
San Antonio - too big of a city to only have one major sports franchise, gives the 2nd biggest state a 3rd team
And regarding to elephant in the room: Miami is supposed to be team 24, owned by David Beckham, but the process of getting that done is really dragging along. Since Miami isn't exactly noted for being a good sports town and it seems like most MLS fans hate the idea of putting a franchise there, I'd rather see Florida's team #2 go to the Tampa/St. Pete bid.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 07, 2017, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 06, 2017, 08:06:07 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 06, 2017, 11:03:00 AM
San Diego doesn't deserve any more sports teams. They lost he Clippers in the 80's and now the Chargers that should send a message that San Diego is not a sports town. Not to mention the fans there acted like little children when the Chargers left. I say this story is fiction.
Oh yeah because the Padres don't exist.
I said they don't deserve any more sports team. I know the Padres are already there but they don't deserve a MLS team or another NFL team another NBA team ect. San Diego is not much of a sports town they have lost 3 major league teams as is and after thier fans had temper tantrums after losing the Chargers I have zero sympathy for that city and besides there is already plenty of sports in southern California in the greater Los Angeles area.
OK, I'm kinda done with your "California doesn't deserve any more sports teams" bit. First of all, any tiny amount of research will tell you that the teams leaving had very little do with the fans and everything to do with greedy owners and people (smartly) not wanting to use public funds on new facilities.
Second, please source your "acted like little children/temper tantrum" statements. Shall we compare them with the crying and gnashing of teeth when, say, the Sonics left Seattle, or the Colts left Baltimore, or the Browns left Cleveland, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Hell, the Colts left 30-plus years ago, their new team has won a couple of Super Bowls, but bring the subject up to a long-time Baltimore fan and they'll still act like you just ran over their puppy. It sucks when a team leaves, no matter what.
By the way, St Louis and Boston have each lost four teams. By your logic, they're bad sports towns as well, right?
Third, and perhaps most important, the numbers don't support your argument. California's four major markets are in a semi-straight line about 500 miles long and have 16 teams in the big four leagues (15 if the Raiders move). If we place that same line over, say, Pittsburgh to Milwaukee, there's 18 teams (19 if we stretch to Green Bay), and fewer people in those markets. So would it be fair to say that the Upper Midwest should lose some of their teams? California has an appropriate number of teams for the size of its markets. Get over it.
Finally, Los Angeles and San Diego are TWO SEPARATE MARKETS. It's the equivalent of New York and Philadelphia.
If you're anti-California, fine, you are welcome to that opinion, but please try and get your facts straight.
How close do you think we are to seeing teams *earning* their way into the top-level league? MLS is almost as big as they can practically get without having to seriously consider splitting some of themselves off into a 'second division' and have the teams promote and relegate between them - like in most of the rest of the World.
There are a LOT of active and thriving lower-level clubs in North America (ie, Detroit City) that, IMHO, would absolutely thrive in an overseas-model pro/rel federation.
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 16, 2017, 11:01:37 AM
How close do you think we are to seeing teams *earning* their way into the top-level league? MLS is almost as big as they can practically get without having to seriously consider splitting some of themselves off into a 'second division' and have the teams promote and relegate between them - like in most of the rest of the World.
There are a LOT of active and thriving lower-level clubs in North America (ie, Detroit City) that, IMHO, would absolutely thrive in an overseas-model pro/rel federation.
:hmmm:
Mike
Far, very far.
Until soccer in this country is financial stable enough to take the hit that relegation to a second division does to a team, there's going to be resistance from teams and team owners.
I think we're still decades away, if that.
Quote from: Bruce on February 16, 2017, 10:57:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 16, 2017, 11:01:37 AM
How close do you think we are to seeing teams *earning* their way into the top-level league? MLS is almost as big as they can practically get without having to seriously consider splitting some of themselves off into a 'second division' and have the teams promote and relegate between them - like in most of the rest of the World.
There are a LOT of active and thriving lower-level clubs in North America (ie, Detroit City) that, IMHO, would absolutely thrive in an overseas-model pro/rel federation.
:hmmm:
Mike
Far, very far.
Until soccer in this country is financial stable enough to take the hit that relegation to a second division does to a team, there's going to be resistance from teams and team owners.
I think we're still decades away, if that.
Peter Wilt, the guy who basically started the Chicago Fire and later, the Indy Eleven, and still has a very active role in professional soccer at various levels throughout the Midwest, wrote a really interesting longform piece about the potential of introducing pro/rel to American soccer.
https://whatahowler.com/the-pro-rel-manifesto-245d5597f2f8#.lucwd4l3g
He brings up some interesting possibilities, such as parachute payments for relegated clubs, but unfortunately I too am cynical about this happening anytime soon. Current MLS owners have invested too much into their franchises to go willingly along with this. It's a shame, because in the big picture I do think it would be a substantial net positive for the game in this country.
Quote from: Buck87 on February 07, 2017, 02:44:55 PM
Sacramento - has shown much enthusiasm for a team, gives NorCal and SoCal 2 teams each (LA has a 2nd team starting in 2018)
From what I've been able to understand, Sacramento's MLS bid hinges on completely destroying the current USL club and starting over from scratch with a new ownership group. Needless to say, this is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way who have put a lot of stake into the Republic, both financially and emotionally.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-soccervote-20170404-story.html
Now San Diego has a Ballot initiative to fund a new MLS stadium on the old San Diego Chargers site.
Meanwhile, St. Louis voted down stadium funding yesterday, so they are pretty much eliminated from the expansion discussion
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/soccer/fc-cincinnati/2017/12/06/tale-tape-fc-cincinnati-vs-detriot-nashville-and-sacramento/928807001/
Here is an update.
According to MLS, Nashville is in! The other city should be announced by the end of the year.
With expansion talks, some wonder if the MLS is a big ponzi scheme?
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=65462
https://deadspin.com/is-mls-a-ponzi-scheme-1797509617
Quote from: Henry on December 21, 2017, 10:04:42 AM
According to MLS, Nashville is in! The other city should be announced by the end of the year.
At least we know it aint going to be Sacramento thank goodness. For those there who want to see the MLS they can simply drive an hour west to the bay area they have a team there. I think Cincinnati would be a good choice they could use another team.
Quote from: dvferyance on December 22, 2017, 07:34:53 PM
I think Cincinnati would be a good choice they could use another team.
As a Cincinnatian I am afraid this is just going to be another passing fad. Assuming they make MLS and get their own stadium, within 5 years they'll be struggling to draw as many fans as the Cyclones (a minor league hockey team). As is numbers on the streetcar have dropped and are not was big as expected. By time MLS and a soccer stadium come along, people will be onto the next big fad.
Any word on the Columbus Crew plans to relocate? A future MLS team anywhere in Ohio to replace them? or if they're staying put, the MLS gives the 26th team to Austin, Texas. 23 existing members, 2 expansion teams and 1 possible city. The MLS is on the grow.
Quote from: Desert Man on May 01, 2018, 11:20:57 PM
Any word on the Columbus Crew plans to relocate? A future MLS team anywhere in Ohio to replace them? or if they're staying put, the MLS gives the 26th team to Austin, Texas. 23 existing members, 2 expansion teams and 1 possible city. The MLS is on the grow.
Cincinnati is officially in.
So here's where things stand currently...
2019: FC Cincinnati begins play as MLS team #24
2020: Club Internacional de Fútbol Miami and Nashville SC* begin play as MLS teams #25 and #26
2021: Austin FC begins play as MLS team #27. Likely that a 2nd team will join them that year as team #28.
2022 and beyond: expansion to 30? 32?
The deal that saved the Columbus Crew while also granting Austin an expansion team has left only one spot open for the league to reach their previously announced goal of 28 teams. However, while it hasn't been officially announced, it is highly likely that expansion will continue beyond 28 (the commissioner has hinted at it)
So cities such as Sacramento, Phoenix, St. Louis, Detroit, Charlotte, San Diego and Indianapolis are vying to land that #28 spot to come in with Austin in 2021, and those that don't get it will likely still be in the running for spots 29-32. It's also worth noting that MLS will be negotiating a new TV deal in 2022, so that might have a big impact on where and when they decide to add expansion teams.
The most recent big news from the list of candidate cities came from Sacramento yesterday, as they have secured a billionaire to lead their investment group. Sacramento has long been a leading candidate for MLS expansion and has a shovel ready stadium plan in place, the biggest hole in their bid has been their financially weak ownership and that just got fixed in a major way. Other updates since this thread was last active are that St. Louis is back with a new bid with a solid ownership group and a city approved stadium plan, and that Phoenix has emerged as a strong bid with plans in the works for an outdoor stadium utilizing "advanced cooling technology."
* Nashville hasn't officially announced their name yet, but all signs point to them using the "Nashville SC" brand they currently use in the USL
MLS has officially announced future expansion to 30 teams, and plans to announce who 28 & 29 will be by this year's All Star game.
It looks like St. Louis and Sacramento are those most likely to get those 2 spots. Will be interesting to see if one of them gets paired with Austin in 2021 to keep the league an even number, with the other waiting to come in with whoever #30 ends up being.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 07, 2017, 05:23:16 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 07, 2017, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 06, 2017, 08:06:07 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 06, 2017, 11:03:00 AM
San Diego doesn't deserve any more sports teams. They lost he Clippers in the 80's and now the Chargers that should send a message that San Diego is not a sports town. Not to mention the fans there acted like little children when the Chargers left. I say this story is fiction.
Oh yeah because the Padres don't exist.
I said they don't deserve any more sports team. I know the Padres are already there but they don't deserve a MLS team or another NFL team another NBA team ect. San Diego is not much of a sports town they have lost 3 major league teams as is and after thier fans had temper tantrums after losing the Chargers I have zero sympathy for that city and besides there is already plenty of sports in southern California in the greater Los Angeles area.
OK, I'm kinda done with your "California doesn't deserve any more sports teams" bit. First of all, any tiny amount of research will tell you that the teams leaving had very little do with the fans and everything to do with greedy owners and people (smartly) not wanting to use public funds on new facilities.
Second, please source your "acted like little children/temper tantrum" statements. Shall we compare them with the crying and gnashing of teeth when, say, the Sonics left Seattle, or the Colts left Baltimore, or the Browns left Cleveland, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Hell, the Colts left 30-plus years ago, their new team has won a couple of Super Bowls, but bring the subject up to a long-time Baltimore fan and they'll still act like you just ran over their puppy. It sucks when a team leaves, no matter what.
By the way, St Louis and Boston have each lost four teams. By your logic, they're bad sports towns as well, right?
Third, and perhaps most important, the numbers don't support your argument. California's four major markets are in a semi-straight line about 500 miles long and have 16 teams in the big four leagues (15 if the Raiders move). If we place that same line over, say, Pittsburgh to Milwaukee, there's 18 teams (19 if we stretch to Green Bay), and fewer people in those markets. So would it be fair to say that the Upper Midwest should lose some of their teams? California has an appropriate number of teams for the size of its markets. Get over it.
Finally, Los Angeles and San Diego are TWO SEPARATE MARKETS. It's the equivalent of New York and Philadelphia.
If you're anti-California, fine, you are welcome to that opinion, but please try and get your facts straight.
Southern California is Southern California - to outsiders, it seems like one giant area of LA/Anaheim/Long Beach/San Diego/etc. Similarly with San Fran/Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento. There are tons of sports teams in those areas. By contrast, there are more mid/small cities with less pro sports teams in the midwest. The difference is when there are multiple teams in one area in the same sport, they will compete with each other constantly because fans have to choose which team to support - when the Dodgers and Padres play each other 19 times in 6 months you can't root for both.
St. Louis and Sacramento will be MLS teams #28 and #29
St. Louis was announced back in August, and Sacramento was announced today. Both are scheduled to enter the league for the 2022 season.
It's expected that Charlotte will be announced as the 30th MLS franchise tomorrow, and they will be owned by Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper.
It's also rumored that that they will start play in 2021, to keep the league at an even number by coming in with Austin. This would make the most sense, although one negative side effect is that Nashville will likely have to spend their first 2 years in the Western Conference, before getting moved to the East once Sacramento and St. Louis arrive in 2022.
So while Charlotte will be the 30th team announced, they might be the 28th the actually begin play.
Edit to update:
Charlotte will indeed begin play in 2021
Sacramento makes no sense given it's close proximity to the bay area. If your going to put another team in California San Diego would have been more logical.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 24, 2020, 09:21:58 PM
Sacramento makes no sense given it's close proximity to the bay area. If your going to put another team in California San Diego would have been more logical.
Sacramento is an entirely different media market and has an existing team with good levels of support in the lower leagues. It also had a stable stadium plan and finally got their funding all pieced together.
San Diego, on the other hand, has had trouble keeping its lower league teams and its stadium situation is still murky at best. There's also the matter of competing with the Xolos right across the border, so consider the market already covered.
Due to various complications and delays caused by the pandemic, 3 of the 4 expansion teams will now start a year later than originally planned. So the new schedule is:
2021 - Austin FC (27 teams)
2022 - Charlotte (28 teams)
2023 - St. Louis and Sacramento (30 teams)