PDA

View Full Version : Vancouver Reconsidering Fee*Rumour*



Ossington Mental Youth
12-03-2008, 08:30 AM
Miami may join league as early as 2010 if conditions are met according to a league boss. Vancouver reconsidering expansion fee. More later.I know its just MLSR.
Also I know its the MLS.
Why doesnt the MLS, IF this is true, just come out and say that they dont want any more canadian teams for the time being?
I wouldnt be upset, id be more upset if they tried to make it look like Vancouver also didnt provide enough (even if thats sorta true with BC place, but then again look at Miami and FIU)

Some mod wanna add Rumor to the title please?

Lucky Strike
12-03-2008, 08:32 AM
Grrr....(if true).

FluSH
12-03-2008, 09:25 AM
I called it...

Hope it goes to Miami and Portland

Pigfynn
12-03-2008, 09:27 AM
Nah, Miami and Ottawa...you watch.

Parkdale
12-03-2008, 09:28 AM
Some mod wanna add Rumor to the title please?


just add the source (a link) to where you found that quote, and it's not really a rumour anymore.

Toronto_Bhoy
12-03-2008, 10:03 AM
I wouldn't doubt if most of these bids are conditional…at $40 million…

rocker
12-03-2008, 10:07 AM
check today's news thread for the article.

they are NOT reconsidering the fee. They are totally willing to spend $40mil.

Redcoe15
12-03-2008, 10:32 AM
IMO, I think its obvious MLS is trying to bend backwards to welcome the Miami-Barcelona bid in with open arms simply because of the business arangement they have with FC Barcelona. If it wern't for FCB, and Miami put forward the same bid and demands, do you think they would stand a chance? And is Barca doing this for the right reasons or, as I and many suspect, they're doing it for branding and marketing purposes?

This is gonna look real bad on Don Garber and MLS if they let this highly flawed and suspect bid in. This has epic fail written all over it.

Parkdale
12-03-2008, 10:36 AM
This is gonna look real bad on Don Garber and MLS if they let this highly flawed and suspect bid in. This has epic fail written all over it.


either way, I'll be attending as many games in Miami as possible.

Cashcleaner
12-03-2008, 10:46 AM
I'd say that Vancouver and Ottawa would have a pretty legit court case against Garber and the league if they don't get awarded their teams after Garber let slip the fact that he wants priority given to American cities.

If he's serious about pushing US teams only, that means Kerfoot and Melnyk had wasted all the time, effort, and money into presenting their bids. Even if they didn't put forward the money for the fee, there's still a lot you have to spend just to have the league hear you out. If what Garber said is actually a policy for the league, then he should have been up front about that before the bidding process was underway.

rocker
12-03-2008, 10:48 AM
court case? has that ever happened in any sports league (failed bid sues the league it wants to get into?)

I read that Lenarduzzi said he knew that American teams would always have an advantage in the bid process. That's why they had to make sure their bid was solid.

Cashcleaner
12-03-2008, 10:56 AM
^ Not sure if it has. I could check wikipedia for that. The point is that its not really kosher to open up the bidding and then afterwards say something along the lines of "Well, we were really only going to give it to American cities. Yeah, we could have told you guys that sooner, but ya know...".

Obviously, that's not what was said, but you get the idea.

rocker
12-03-2008, 11:03 AM
here is the article I read where Lenarduzzi says he already knew that the league was most interested in American cities:

While it could be a simple matter of semantics, more concerning for Vancouver soccer fans should be Garber's comments that more Canadian franchises "take away from growing our footprint and our television ratings in the United States." ... Lenarduzzi fully understands the commissioner's stance on additional Canadian teams.
It's something the Whitecaps were aware of when they first considered making the jump to MLS from the United Soccer Leagues First Division.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=a0af2cc5-5873-45db-a550-724e0daac136

Garber's not saying anything they didn't know before they submitted their bids in October.

Cashcleaner
12-03-2008, 11:16 AM
Fair enough, rocker. Hopefully they'll get in despite Garber's leanings towards US candidates. MLS needs Canadian teams so badly it's not even funny anymore.

Steve
12-03-2008, 11:40 AM
Fair enough, rocker. Hopefully they'll get in despite Garber's leanings towards US candidates. MLS needs Canadian teams so badly it's not even funny anymore.

Why? Seriously, why does it need Canadian teams? Are you basing your entire "Canadian teams are better" on the fact that TFC did well? You do realise that Toronto is not the same as every city in Canada, yes? Canadians, in general, are probably no more interested in soccer than Americans, in general, are. They have their unyeilding American Football fans, we have our unyielding hockey fans. I think it's time to get off the "Canadian teams are better" boat and focus on specific markets.

I think Vancouver has a strong bid. I think some American cities also have strong bids. MLS does not need Canada, Canada needs MLS. Pretending it were otherwise only fuels the ridiculous statements of some Americans telling us to "get our own league".

NF-FC
12-03-2008, 11:50 AM
if the two teams wind up being FC Barcelona Juniors of Miami and the Atlanta Ape-shits then i want out of this league. Atlanta is a terrible market and Barca Miami will make MLS look even more minor league.

Ossington Mental Youth
12-03-2008, 11:56 AM
itll be miami and stlouis or Portland for certain.

LucaGol
12-03-2008, 12:50 PM
Eventually all of these cities will be granted franchises.

Im sure the ultimate goal of the league is to have enough teams to make an MLS 1 and an MLS 2, maybe even 3, so as to support promotion and relegation. That's what I'd try to be doing anyway.

You need 36 teams minimum for this scheme, either 18 and 18 for 2 leagues, or 12, 12 and 12 for three. Obviously the more teams the better.

The talent pool will obviously have to grow and improve to facilitate this, but in the long term I believe it to be viable.

One could argue that USL domestic players are already at a level comparable to the MLS. If this is the case, you're more than 75% of the way to completing this objective.

So if Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa lose out now, Im sure they'll have been granted franchises within at least 5-7 years.

Toronto_Bhoy
12-03-2008, 12:54 PM
I'd say that Vancouver and Ottawa would have a pretty legit court case against Garber and the league if they don't get awarded their teams after Garber let slip the fact that he wants priority given to American cities.

If he's serious about pushing US teams only, that means Kerfoot and Melnyk had wasted all the time, effort, and money into presenting their bids. Even if they didn't put forward the money for the fee, there's still a lot you have to spend just to have the league hear you out. If what Garber said is actually a policy for the league, then he should have been up front about that before the bidding process was underway.

There's an anti-trust case in here somewhere Cash…

The multiple bids give the league cause for inflating the [IMO] outrageous expansion fee…

mighty_torontofc_2008
12-03-2008, 01:02 PM
Nah, Miami and Ottawa...you watch.


thats my betting, if the Whitecaps pull an Impact type move then MLS should let them both sit for a while..you dont mess around with league policy...its suicide.

Flipityflu
12-03-2008, 01:08 PM
i'm not sure why people are so surprised about this. we were pretty lucky to get the franchise to be honest, and as Gerber said, the main focus of the league is to develop footy in the states. what is wrong with that? in the end, it is an American league.

lets leave the talk of suing well within the realm of fantasy shall we. you can put it right next to the promotion/relegation fantasy some of you still have.

mighty_torontofc_2008
12-03-2008, 01:08 PM
Fair enough, rocker. Hopefully they'll get in despite Garber's leanings towards US candidates. MLS needs Canadian teams so badly it's not even funny anymore.

NBA thought they had two hits in Toronto and Vancouver....which team is stil playing in Canada? Canadian teams are a disaster for fan attendance
south of the border....No one buys tickets to see the Jays play down south, the Oilers, Flames,Canucks, Sens are not likely to see out any US buildings. Thats just the sporting life in the uS.

Cashcleaner
12-03-2008, 01:31 PM
Why? Seriously, why does it need Canadian teams? Are you basing your entire "Canadian teams are better" on the fact that TFC did well? You do realise that Toronto is not the same as every city in Canada, yes? Canadians, in general, are probably no more interested in soccer than Americans, in general, are. They have their unyielding American Football fans, we have our unyielding hockey fans. I think it's time to get off the "Canadian teams are better" boat and focus on specific markets.

I think Vancouver has a strong bid. I think some American cities also have strong bids. MLS does not need Canada, Canada needs MLS. Pretending it were otherwise only fuels the ridiculous statements of some Americans telling us to "get our own league".

Wait a minute. Toronto ISN'T the same as every other city? :rolleyes:

My opinion has partly to do with Toronto's success, but its more about how the sport would be exposed across the country. Just like how people from Alberta or Saskatchewan will show their support for TFC, the same is likely to happen with Vancouver. Think of the broadcasting coverage that could potentially stretch from here to the west coast. Is Garber so willing to give up on that sort of exposure? I have a feeling he's not.

TFCREDNWHITE
12-03-2008, 02:56 PM
here is the article I read where Lenarduzzi says he already knew that the league was most interested in American cities:

While it could be a simple matter of semantics, more concerning for Vancouver soccer fans should be Garber's comments that more Canadian franchises "take away from growing our footprint and our television ratings in the United States." ... Lenarduzzi fully understands the commissioner's stance on additional Canadian teams.
It's something the Whitecaps were aware of when they first considered making the jump to MLS from the United Soccer Leagues First Division.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=a0af2cc5-5873-45db-a550-724e0daac136

Garber's not saying anything they didn't know before they submitted their bids in October.


Garber is such a moron!!!! What is with these short-sighted, quick cash grab antics of Garber!?!!? Do they not want to have STABILITY!?!?

mighty_torontofc_2008
12-03-2008, 03:00 PM
Garber is such a moron!!!! What is with these short-sighted, quick cash grab antics of Garber!?!!? Do they not want to have STABILITY!?!?


Its not Garbers fault Joey Saputo is a cheap SOB, and the dick heads running the whitecaps travelling circus is still want BC place for a stadium which should be not acceptable to MLS. Thes two canadian franchise make Jack benny look like George Steinbrenner.

T_Mizz
12-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Why should it be about developing soccer in the states?
Is it a pro sports league or not?
Did the NBA care?
Did MLB care?
Did the CFL care (inverse)?
It should be about two things: Putting the best product on the field, but first and foremost making money.

Ossington Mental Youth
12-03-2008, 03:40 PM
League was initially set up to develop soccer down south, was a mandate to getting the world cup if im not mistaken, regardless its past that now, or so we'd like to think (and its apparently not)

Oldtimer
12-03-2008, 04:05 PM
There's an anti-trust case in here somewhere Cash…

The multiple bids give the league cause for inflating the [IMO] outrageous expansion fee…

The single-entity prevents that. Legally, MLS is a company, and the teams are shareholders.

jloome
12-03-2008, 05:01 PM
Why? Seriously, why does it need Canadian teams? Are you basing your entire "Canadian teams are better" on the fact that TFC did well? You do realise that Toronto is not the same as every city in Canada, yes? Canadians, in general, are probably no more interested in soccer than Americans, in general, are. They have their unyeilding American Football fans, we have our unyielding hockey fans. I think it's time to get off the "Canadian teams are better" boat and focus on specific markets.

I think Vancouver has a strong bid. I think some American cities also have strong bids. MLS does not need Canada, Canada needs MLS. Pretending it were otherwise only fuels the ridiculous statements of some Americans telling us to "get our own league".

My perception of this is that it's not true -- I don't have much to support it other than the fact that soccer, as a participatory sport, is much more popular here and that soccer news shows like Soccer Central do very well.

But it makes sense; we're not as much of a melting pot culture and there is no dominant Canadian "pop culture" to overwhelm people's traditions; every Canadian city is at least close to as multi-cultural as Toronto these days, so there's no reason to think it wouldn't be as popular. Additionally, several cities (Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver) have already proven in various NASL incarnations that they could outdraw major US cities.

So while it's hardly what you'd call scientific, there's some empirical suggestion that that belief is true.

Oh, and not to burst the bubble of Torontonians but having lived all across the country, including in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, I can tell you: all Canadian cities are basically the same.

Beach_Red
12-03-2008, 05:49 PM
Oh, and not to burst the bubble of Torontonians but having lived all across the country, including in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, I can tell you: all Canadian cities are basically the same.

Okay, sure, but you could get in trouble if you say Calgary and Edmonton are the same ;).

I think you're right, though, about Canadian cities being ready to support soccer in a bigger way.

kshep
12-03-2008, 10:06 PM
Its not Garbers fault Joey Saputo is a cheap SOB, and the dick heads running the whitecaps travelling circus is still want BC place for a stadium which should be not acceptable to MLS. Thes two canadian franchise make Jack benny look like George Steinbrenner.


MLS opened the door to the Whitecaps using BC place in their bid when they allowed Seattle into the league fully knowing they have no intention of ever moving from Quest.

mighty_torontofc_2008
12-03-2008, 10:11 PM
MLS opened the door to the Whitecaps using BC place in their bid when they allowed Seattle into the league fully knowing they have no intention of ever moving from Quest.

Maybe, but they are well within their rights not to let anymore big multi purpose satdiums in, and thats what they must do, even if it means NO Vancouver franchise till they get a SSS going.

Toronto_Bhoy
12-03-2008, 10:32 PM
I'd say that Vancouver and Ottawa would have a pretty legit court case against Garber and the league if they don't get awarded their teams after Garber let slip the fact that he wants priority given to American cities.



The single-entity prevents that. Legally, MLS is a company, and the teams are shareholders.

I don't know Oldtimer…I'm not a lawyer but if a company tenders bids and admits to having no intention on honouring them but uses them to artificially inflate the price…isn't that "conspiracy to commit fraud" [perhaps anti-trust is the incorrect term]?

Not only that…the bidders aren't shareholders until their bid is accepted and becomes part of the league…why couldn't one of the losing bids blow the whistle?

Just asking…

Beach_Red
12-03-2008, 10:41 PM
I don't know Oldtimer…I'm not a lawyer but if a company tenders bids and admits to having no intention on honouring them but uses them to artificially inflate the price…isn't that "conspiracy to commit fraud" [perhaps anti-trust is the incorrect term]?

Not only that…the bidders aren't shareholders until their bid is accepted and becomes part of the league…why couldn't one of the losing bids blow the whistle?

Just asking…

I agree with you, but I bet the MLS has given itself enough outs in the bid process - there's probably some disclaimer that says they don't even have to say why a bid is accepted or not and everyone signs on when they submit.

But how are the bids accepted? If I remember correctly in the NHL the Board of Governors - one rep from each team - votes on expansion bids, is that what MLS does? Does the league have a Board of Governors?

Toronto Ruffrider
12-04-2008, 12:10 AM
MLS opened the door to the Whitecaps using BC place in their bid when they allowed Seattle into the league fully knowing they have no intention of ever moving from Quest.

Seattle's situation is a bit different from Vancouver's, I'm afraid. In Seattle, ownership essentially owns both the Sounders and Quest Field, so MLS doesn't have to worry about that team bleeding money to an outside stadium owner. In contrast, Kerfoot and Co. don't own BC Place, so the Whitecaps' ownership, and by extension MLS, does not stand to benefit as much from lucrative stadium revenue streams.

Cashcleaner
12-04-2008, 12:42 AM
I don't know Oldtimer…I'm not a lawyer but if a company tenders bids and admits to having no intention on honouring them but uses them to artificially inflate the price…isn't that "conspiracy to commit fraud" [perhaps anti-trust is the incorrect term]?

Not only that…the bidders aren't shareholders until their bid is accepted and becomes part of the league…why couldn't one of the losing bids blow the whistle?

Just asking…

Thats what my argument was, but as it turns out Kerfoot and the others behind Vancouver's bid knew Garber's position long before they put together their application.

Vindaloo
12-04-2008, 11:54 AM
That story about Vancouver reconsidering the fee is absolute bs and was done by a idiotic reporter at the Vancouver Sun. It was completely misleading and therefore this thread title is misleading. He has since, yesterday, came out with a properly worded article. Contradicting himself in the first article he said this -

However, former Yahoo! executive and Vancouver bid applicant Jeff Mallett stressed the group is confident that planned renovations will proceed at BC Place, making it MLS-ready by the time the Whitecaps begin play there in 2011.

He said his group still expects to pay a $40-million fee if it is selected to join the league. Toronto FC paid a $10 million franchise fee three years ago while Seattle and Philadelphia paid $30 million each to begin play in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

"We know the league is looking for $40 million and we respect that," Mallett said in an interview. "All our financial modelling has been done around the $40 million

Cashcleaner
12-04-2008, 11:58 AM
^ Sounds like Vancouver is on the right track. News I like to hear.

ilikemusic
12-04-2008, 12:07 PM
I hope Vancouver follows Montreal's lead and balks at the MLS expansion fee. Its completely inflated and not a true representation of franchise values in the slightest. The league will be brought back down to earth in about 4 years and Montreal and Vancovuer will both find themselves in a more advantageous position when that time comes. I dont see a need to have them in MLS. I love to see TFC compete with them and the Canadian Championship is good enough for me.

Vindaloo
12-04-2008, 12:23 PM
^Could you honestly say that if hypothetically Toronto was in the same position as Vancouver?

ilikemusic
12-04-2008, 12:29 PM
^Could you honestly say that if hypothetically Toronto was in the same position as Vancouver?

I think theyre so different that the comparison isnt really relevant. Toronto didnt have an established USL side that was looking to move up. Also, MLSE are rich enough, I couldnt care less about them being fiscally prudent.

I think MLS franchise values will plummet soon enough. I just dont think the Vancouver or Montreal franchises should let MLS get them over a barrel like this.

mighty_torontofc_2008
12-04-2008, 12:46 PM
I hope Vancouver follows Montreal's lead and balks at the MLS expansion fee. Its completely inflated and not a true representation of franchise values in the slightest. The league will be brought back down to earth in about 4 years and Montreal and Vancovuer will both find themselves in a more advantageous position when that time comes. I dont see a need to have them in MLS. I love to see TFC compete with them and the Canadian Championship is good enough for me.


if that was the Case and vancouver Balks like Montrewal, if i were in
the higher up at MLS, i would make them wait at least a decade before allowing them to re apply...MLS DOES NOT need Montreal and Vancouver.

rocker
12-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Its completely inflated and not a true representation of franchise values in the slightest.

How is not a true representation of franchise value?
Removing the value of the Galaxy, Forbes valued the other teams at an average of 32 million.
If Forbes valued teams at 10 or 20 million then I'd say 40 is inflated.
but 40 million is a pretty close representation of franchise values.

If the average franchise value is 32 million now, and I'm Donny Garber, I sure as hell ain't gonna let people in for 32 million now...

If you include the Galaxy, the average value according to Forbes was 37 million, only 3 million less than the expansion price.

Oscar De La Hoya apparently bought 25% of the Dynamo for 10 million bucks.

Beach_Red
12-04-2008, 01:47 PM
How is not a true representation of franchise value?


Right. The value is determined by what someone is willing to pay. It looks like more than two teams are willing to pay the $40 million.

What I don't understand is why doesn't the MLS auction off two expansion spots, let these guys bid up the value.

james
12-04-2008, 02:48 PM
Portland are the only american City that have shown they truelly deserve an MLS team!

Cashcleaner
12-05-2008, 08:32 AM
I hope Vancouver follows Montreal's lead and balks at the MLS expansion fee. Its completely inflated and not a true representation of franchise values in the slightest. The league will be brought back down to earth in about 4 years and Montreal and Vancovuer will both find themselves in a more advantageous position when that time comes. I dont see a need to have them in MLS. I love to see TFC compete with them and the Canadian Championship is good enough for me.

I'm going to be honest, for the past two weeks I've been grinding my teeth in bed because I kept thinking how we were all collectively getting the shaft from MLS with regards to Vancouver's and Montreal's bids and Garber's recent statements. Today was the first day I woke up well-rested and alert thinking to mysel:

"Hey, it's actually not all that bad. We still have them for the Voyageurs Cup."

And everything suddenly became right with the world.

Vancouver MLS
03-10-2009, 02:21 PM
What they are reconsidering are the Academy rules.

I heard Lenarduzzi last night on 1040 and I didn't like his tone.

I'm afraid for Vancouver this could be a deal breaker

Don Julio
03-10-2009, 02:37 PM
I think they should put a hold on expansion for a couple years. Letting Philly and Seattle flourish for a couple years will drive up, or stabilize the franchise fee, letting the economy recover will facilitate land/stadium deals as well as payment of the fee, a slower more organic growth will minimize talent dilution in the league and keep the quality of the product rising instead of falling.

Douches like Cathal Kelly think Beckham leaving will be the end of the league? Not a chance, but expanding too much and too quickly can sure cause a lot of damage. Ask the NHL.

Steve
03-10-2009, 02:56 PM
What they are reconsidering are the Academy rules.

I heard Lenarduzzi last night on 1040 and I didn't like his tone.

I'm afraid for Vancouver this could be a deal breaker

Please check the dates as to what you're responding to, you've been responding to posts anywhere from 3 to 9 months old.

Don Julio
03-10-2009, 02:58 PM
lol, I stand by my point though.

Super Cereal
03-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Ask the NHL.

MLS can only dream to be as relevant as the NHL currently is.

Stouffville_RPB
03-10-2009, 03:16 PM
If we were backing the bid we would all want to negotiate the price. Especially if we were the only ones with a SSS and the funds. Every other bid is missing one or the other.

kshep
03-10-2009, 03:16 PM
Except outside of about 15 markets the NHL isn't relevant at all.

MUFC_Niagara
03-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Except outside of about 15 markets the NHL isn't relevant at all.

Exactly. Except for a select few markets, no one in the US gives a shit about "ice hockey."

Super Cereal
03-10-2009, 04:06 PM
Exactly. Except for a select few markets, no one in the US gives a shit about "ice hockey."

That's an unfair statement.

Boston, New York, Minnesota, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, San Jose, Detroit and Chicago all have great fanbases. Far from a select few.

Your statement would be a lot more accurate for soccer to be honest.

Stouffville_RPB
03-10-2009, 04:32 PM
That's an unfair statement.

Boston, New York, Minnesota, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, San Jose, Detroit and Chicago all have great fanbases. Far from a select few.

Your statement would be a lot more accurate for soccer to be honest.

I believe that you named 10 US cities add the 6 Canadian teams and that is 16. That is pretty darn close.

If MLS isn't careful the same thing that happened to the NHL with expansion will happen to it. I personally hope that expansion stops after Vancouver for a while. Give other cities time to see the MLS and develop a demand for it.

Not to mention take some time to develop more talent so that the talent in the league isn't spread so thin.

T_Mizz
03-10-2009, 04:39 PM
I also think they had better slow down and remember that after Philly comes in you have only 4 more teams allowed to come into the league (FIFA Rule), therefore the MLS should be focused on quality not quantity

Don Julio
03-10-2009, 06:12 PM
As Canadians we have no perspective on the relevance of the NHL, but it was more relevant 15-20 years ago than it is now. The massive talent dillution led to the terrible clutch and grab era of the 90s and early 2000s, half empty arenas in places noone cares about the game. And they did it for the same reason: Enormous up front expansion fees. Well look where that got them. With quality players harder to come by their salaries got artificially inflated and suddenly half the teams are near bankruptcy, even with the cap!

MLS needs to settle down. 3 seasons of nothing after Philly, let teams like KC relocate, and then start building again.

Super Cereal
03-10-2009, 06:29 PM
I believe that you named 10 US cities add the 6 Canadian teams and that is 16. That is pretty darn close.

If MLS isn't careful the same thing that happened to the NHL with expansion will happen to it. I personally hope that expansion stops after Vancouver for a while. Give other cities time to see the MLS and develop a demand for it.

Not to mention take some time to develop more talent so that the talent in the league isn't spread so thin.

10 is a lot more than "a select few" in my opinion.

In terms of NHL, if we're talking about teams that are relevant, it's even more than 16 the only teams that don't deserve a team imo, are Nashville, Atlanta, Florida and Phoenix.

I'm just saying, people are being far too harsh with the NHL expansion. The NHL is a successful league, and MLS will be lucky to ever come close to being as successful as them.

Did they over expand? A bit maybe, but it isn't crippling in the least. For MLS to expand to select cities that would surely be successful, I don't see a problem.

T_Mizz
03-10-2009, 06:56 PM
:rolleyes:I wish that MLS could one day be as successful as the NFL, a man can dream can't he:D

Derko
03-10-2009, 07:19 PM
10 is a lot more than "a select few" in my opinion.

In terms of NHL, if we're talking about teams that are relevant, it's even more than 16 the only teams that don't deserve a team imo, are Nashville, Atlanta, Florida and Phoenix.

I'm just saying, people are being far too harsh with the NHL expansion. The NHL is a successful league, and MLS will be lucky to ever come close to being as successful as them.

Did they over expand? A bit maybe, but it isn't crippling in the least. For MLS to expand to select cities that would surely be successful, I don't see a problem.

Stop expanding the MLS after 18-20 teams, for at least 5 years, don't become watered down like the NHL has become. My opinion as follows

I honestly think that the NHL has been a watered down league for the past 10 years, they could probabley get rid of say 8 to 10 teams:
Atl.
Fla.
Tampa
Phoenix
San Jose
Ana.
Nash.
Col.
Dallas
Colorado

Then we would see good Hockey again.

Don Julio
03-10-2009, 07:28 PM
Well, they should probably keep San Jose, Dallas and Colorado, but you can toss the Sens in the bin, I wouldn't mind!

And it's not about the total amount of teams.. It's about the speed of expansion. 6 teams in 5 years is bordering on reckless. It goes against the conservative nature of the league which has allowed it to survive all this time. They need to learn to keep the buyers hungry.

Super Cereal
03-10-2009, 07:32 PM
Stop expanding the MLS after 18-20 teams, for at least 5 years, don't become watered down like the NHL has become. My opinion as follows

I honestly think that the NHL has been a watered down league for the past 10 years, they could probabley get rid of say 8 to 10 teams:
Atl.
Fla.
Tampa
Phoenix
San Jose
Ana.
Nash.
Col.
Dallas
Colorado

Then we would see good Hockey again.

I hope you aren't grouping those teams together based on fanbases.

San Jose has one of the best fanbases of all the American teams. Especially come playoff time. Columbus too, have dedicated fans, who lately have just been frustrated due to a lack of competetive teams. Colorado not too long ago had the record for the sellout streaks.

And hockey is already good. They could maybe cut 5 teams if they really wanted to, anymore would be overdoing it.

Super Cereal
03-10-2009, 07:35 PM
And it's not about the total amount of teams.. It's about the speed of expansion. 6 teams in 5 years is bordering on reckless. It goes against the conservative nature of the league which has allowed it to survive all this time. They need to learn to keep the buyers hungry.

For MLS, I would agree, rapid expansion may not be the best way to go about things.

It just pisses me off that they won't expand to worthy teams such as Ottawa or Montreal while they have teams with shitty fanbases like Kansas City, and Columbus (a few idiots wanna be hooligans that come out when their team is finally relevant don't count) have franchises. It's unfair.

Don Julio
03-10-2009, 10:31 PM
For MLS, I would agree, rapid expansion may not be the best way to go about things.

It just pisses me off that they won't expand to worthy teams such as Ottawa or Montreal while they have teams with shitty fanbases like Kansas City, and Columbus (a few idiots wanna be hooligans that come out when their team is finally relevant don't count) have franchises. It's unfair.

To be fair their business plan was a bit different when KC and Columbus joined - there's no chance they'd land a franchise now. In fact, I'd wager that at least one of those teams will have moved in 6 years.

But while I'm being fair, I think Ottawa is in the same class, and really is a big crapshoot for a club. Montreal has passion, a (somewhat) supported team, and a European flair. Ottawa has none of those things. Their only "successful" sports franchise is rapidly falling apart. After years of dominating the division and conference their play falls off for a season and they're having trouble selling tickets. They've had 2 football franchises fold in my lifetime. I really don't see them as being the path to the MLS future.

Don Julio
03-10-2009, 10:31 PM
I can't believe I said "European flair". I gotta get off the gin.

Super Cereal
03-10-2009, 11:01 PM
To be fair their business plan was a bit different when KC and Columbus joined - there's no chance they'd land a franchise now. In fact, I'd wager that at least one of those teams will have moved in 6 years.

But while I'm being fair, I think Ottawa is in the same class, and really is a big crapshoot for a club. Montreal has passion, a (somewhat) supported team, and a European flair. Ottawa has none of those things. Their only "successful" sports franchise is rapidly falling apart. After years of dominating the division and conference their play falls off for a season and they're having trouble selling tickets. They've had 2 football franchises fold in my lifetime. I really don't see them as being the path to the MLS future.

Yeah, I know it was different back then, it's just frustrating.

Don't wanna get into an arguement about Ottawa. I'm a big Ottawa sports supporter, so I'd show my bias. Just wanna say though, Ottawa seems to have a nice base of soccer fans. They wouldn't exceed, or come close to the level of support Toronto FC got imo, but I think they'd do alright. Ottawa sports fans are fickle, but I think it could work. I realize though, that stats, history and more work against them, I just want an MLS team! I've never even been to a TFC game, the lack of a place to stay in Toronto, price to travel, and difficulty getting tickets haven't exactly made it easy for me, so I apologize for my bias towards getting Ottawa an MLS team.

Cashcleaner
03-11-2009, 01:18 AM
While I'm down with MLS expanding and getting the American people interested in soccer again, I have been starting to think that we may be looking at a new "NHL" happening. By that I mean, the league may start considering franchise and relocation fees as a primary revenue stream just like the NHL did during the 90s. Not a good sign...

Detroit_TFC
03-11-2009, 08:26 AM
The NASL collapse continues to serve as a reality check. The danger point comes when MLS bigwigs decide that the NASL experience no longer applies to the current US/Canadian environment.

And that time may be coming soon. There are increasing calls to dump single entity. There may be a good business case for doing that, but once that happens, we'll rapidly see haves and have nots in the league. The question will be is the league as a whole strong enough to operate that way.

flatpicker
03-11-2009, 08:43 AM
There are increasing calls to dump single entity. There may be a good business case for doing that, but once that happens, we'll rapidly see haves and have nots in the league. The question will be is the league as a whole strong enough to operate that way.


Dumping single entity would not be a bad thing if certain rules are kept in place.
NHL clubs are run independent of each other, yet there is still revenue sharing as far as I understand.
I believe the wealthier clubs still dish out cash that helps the weaker clubs.
And there is still the salary cap in place to control spending.

If MLS did this then things wouldn't get too far out of hand.
They could also implement that rule where by if you spend above the salary cap then, for each extra dollar spent, you have to pay a penalty fee that goes into the revenue sharing pot.

As for "haves and have nots"... a few stronger clubs is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion.
It creates big bad clubs that other cities will vilify and look forward to beating.
Not to mention if a few teams have bigger names on them then that could act as a incentive for fans in other cities to buy tickets for those games.

trane
03-11-2009, 09:03 AM
^ Flats, I agree with you.

But a Canadian League is still what I dream of. 30 teams accros the country, 3 divisions with 10 teams each, and relegation. The problem the CSA will not have the vision to do it.

It is is a dream. But with each year, as footbal grows in this country, I think the possiblity of this happening becomes better. Lets face it three of the possibly most viable footy markets in North America, are Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. You put a league in which smaller citys and town can compete with the big boys, you may get something going.

rocker
03-11-2009, 09:04 AM
dumping single entity won't happen. it would give the players too much negotiating power in the future, as MLS would subject to anti-trust exemptions. Single entity is a brilliant idea on the business end of things, something that all other North America leagues would love to adopt, if they could.

I don't think MLS is at the point anyways where it can be knocking off relatively weak markets just because. As much as I laugh at KC, I still hope for their new stadium and a growing interest there with a proper stadium in place. MLS still needs communal growth rather than "survival of the fittest".

I don't mind big bad clubs. But they should do it with brains and scouting and good coaching rather than an inherent spending advantage.
For example, nothing's stopping the LA Galaxy from being the "world club" they want to be except absolutely atrocious management. If they had more money to spend than the rest, they'd probably overcome that shit management just by spending more, correctly their mistakes with more money. This is the New York Yankees approach.

I always fear that my team is going to be the team that doesn't spend. What if in a free market TFC decided to be budget conscious? Would you enjoy seeing Thierry Henry come to BMO Field with NYRB while we finish last year after year? At least in the current parity environment we have a chance of winning the league every year (as Columbus did, going from out of the playoffs to winning it all in 1 season... I don't see that happening in big Euro leagues).

I think the problem is that even if the opposition has big names, and that draws fans to those games, there are still 14 other home games. When the Yankees come to town in MLB, attendance goes up. But then it goes right back down when they leave. It'd be better to develop fanbases all over MLS (which they have done... if we'd had a free market 10 years ago in MLS we may have lost a whole bunch of teams by now) that don't require big names to keep them satisfied.

Steve
03-11-2009, 09:18 AM
To be fair their business plan was a bit different when KC and Columbus joined - there's no chance they'd land a franchise now. In fact, I'd wager that at least one of those teams will have moved in 6 years.

But while I'm being fair, I think Ottawa is in the same class, and really is a big crapshoot for a club. Montreal has passion, a (somewhat) supported team, and a European flair. Ottawa has none of those things. Their only "successful" sports franchise is rapidly falling apart. After years of dominating the division and conference their play falls off for a season and they're having trouble selling tickets. They've had 2 football franchises fold in my lifetime. I really don't see them as being the path to the MLS future.

You're dreaming. I'm sorry, but the only chance KC or Columbus has of moving, is if KC gets moved before ground is broken on their new stadium (the stadium is supposed to be ready by 2011).

As soon as a city has a SSS, they are not going anywhere. Think about it, MLS teams are currently going to cities and saying "hey guys, please contribute a bunch of money to building a new stadium, I swear MLS is here to stay, and it will be good for you! You'll bring in taxes, and tourism, and lots and lots of money!". Now imagine you're a city, and you see MLS contract a team in a city that GAVE THAT MONEY. Do you think they might be a little reluctant to hand over the cash? Of course they will.

At this point, it's political. Any team with a SSS is safe for the forseeable future. As for single entity, of course they're going to try to keep it. MLS is set up right now as a very safe bet. No bidding against each other (they already have the world to bid against for players), low salary cap, etc. I see them expanding to 18 teams, then pausing for a few years to see how it grows. They'll probably keep the conferences (even though it will be a balanced schedule). After the rest period, if there are more owners knocking at their door, they'll go through another round of expansion that will strengthen the conference system, keeping games at around 30-34.

Cashcleaner
03-11-2009, 01:09 PM
^ Yeah, I don't see KC moving anytime soon after paying all that cash for the new stadium. Even if the team continues to draw no crowds and find themselves up to the eyeballs in debt, MLS will pull out every stop to keep them in town.

Roogsy
03-11-2009, 01:12 PM
The CAD has fallen since all teams put this bid together. From close to pay to hovering around 0.78. It simply makes sense that Canadian owners are nervous about bids that are costing them 10-20% more because of the currency fluctuation.

james
03-11-2009, 11:18 PM
You're dreaming. I'm sorry, but the only chance KC or Columbus has of moving, is if KC gets moved before ground is broken on their new stadium (the stadium is supposed to be ready by 2011).

As soon as a city has a SSS, they are not going anywhere. Think about it, MLS teams are currently going to cities and saying "hey guys, please contribute a bunch of money to building a new stadium, I swear MLS is here to stay, and it will be good for you! You'll bring in taxes, and tourism, and lots and lots of money!". Now imagine you're a city, and you see MLS contract a team in a city that GAVE THAT MONEY. Do you think they might be a little reluctant to hand over the cash? Of course they will.

At this point, it's political. Any team with a SSS is safe for the forseeable future. As for single entity, of course they're going to try to keep it. MLS is set up right now as a very safe bet. No bidding against each other (they already have the world to bid against for players), low salary cap, etc. I see them expanding to 18 teams, then pausing for a few years to see how it grows. They'll probably keep the conferences (even though it will be a balanced schedule). After the rest period, if there are more owners knocking at their door, they'll go through another round of expansion that will strengthen the conference system, keeping games at around 30-34.

i agree most of what you said, but the part where you said any team with a stadium will get a team inst really true. THey showed that to us by not giving Montreal a team....its not just about stadium, its about $40 million as well.