• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

Major League Soccer thread

Hachiko

The Akita on Utopia
Starting this one. I am looking forward to the Los Angeles Galaxy underachieving, only to achieve the minimum, every season.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
Apparently Miami Vice is in actual consideration for Beckham's new franchise. LAWD
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
Can't believe the season is a month away.

Looking forward to see the new and interesting ways Fire ownership can piss off the fans (notice choice of word there) this year.

If anyone is a season ticket holder anywhere, regardless of sport, is normal to have massive turnover in the sales department? I've been a season ticket holder for 9 years and I've had as many account reps in that time period. I don't even make an attempt to know the person anymore knowing that I'll probably have a new person next season.
 

Hachiko

The Akita on Utopia
Galaxy beat San Jose 2-1 to win Central California Cup. And Gyasi Zardes is the hero again. He's actually finishing his shots now. Well.
 

goblue96

Disney and Curling Expert
Apparently Miami Vice is in actual consideration for Beckham's new franchise. LAWD

Just a mock-up I found.

miamisoccer-1.jpg
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
MLS in Florida bringing back the 90's in a big way. Purple in Orlando, Teal in Miami.

I wouldn't mind Teal for Miami though.
 

Orangebird

Premier League Champs
I'm looking forward to following NYCFC when they exist, especially if they'll have City players on loan in their squad.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
I was going to post the video, but Kreis said that they'll be able to take 4 players on loan, most likely from the youth teams. I'm betting at least one DP loanee as well. I think you could get some real talent that way, ship over Lopes, Huwys, another youth guy, and maybe someone like Scott Sinclair for a DP slot.
 

Renegade

Charge on!
How's the DP rule work with loanees? Is it still capped, or can you take as many guys on loan as you're willing to pay for?
 

Renegade

Charge on!
I'd like to see Chivas relocated. What's the point of two teams in the same stadium for MLS? Move them to expand the league footprint.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
A 2nd Los Angeles team is worth more to the league than any market you can move them to. Let them rebrand and acquire new ownership before leaving Los Angeles.

Plus, when Atlanta gets a team what gaps are left in the footprint that are worth filling? You could argue Phoenix and Minnesota that's about it.
 

Renegade

Charge on!
A 2nd Los Angeles team is worth more to the league than any market you can move them to. Let them rebrand and acquire new ownership before leaving Los Angeles.

Plus, when Atlanta gets a team what gaps are left in the footprint that are worth filling? You could argue Phoenix and Minnesota that's about it.

If it's an LA team in another area, maybe, but playing in the same stadium as the Galaxy? Going to be a big brother/little brother thing like Lakers/Clippers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...umber_of_major_professional_sports_franchises

San Diego looks ideal based on its population and only having two other pro franchises. Obviously the more pro teams you have, the more difficult it is for each team to thrive with finite corporate money for premium seating, advertising, etc. MLB and NFL are the most intensive and tend to eat up the resources far faster than NBA or NHL, and MLS can succeed at significantly less than NBA or NHL. This website breaks down the estimated costs for each type of franchise: http://wagesofwins.com/2011/10/31/could-your-city-give-a-sports-team-a-good-home/

But looking at that first chart, there are some opportunities to expand where MLS wouldn't have a lot of competition and could build very strong supporters bases as a result. Now I think they've underestimated the MLS cost, especially as the league grows, a bit, so I'd ignore some of the markets they say can support a team. But there's some on there that we'd typically ignore that probably, upon closer look, do have the population and business capital to support a team (basically looking at where MLS = yes, other sports = Marginal or better):

- Albuquerque
- Birmingham
- Calgary
- Dayton
- El Paso (which has already authorized a bond issuance to build a publicly financed stadium for an MLS team)
- Greenville/Spartanburg
- Hartford
- Honolulu
- Las Vegas
- Louisville
- Omaha
- Providence
- Richmond
- Rochester
- Sacramento
- San Antonio
- Tucson
- Virginia Beach/Norfolk

Now we can debate the merits of many of those, for instance, Birmingham's analysis does not include all the money that is spent on Bammer and Barn footbaw. That analysis, at least, rules out cities like Phoenix, San Diego, and Minneapolis as already being too saturated. I'm not sure if they are or aren't, but I do at least like the general methodology used. At any rate, I think expanding the footprint even into a smaller market is worth more than a second team playing in LA playing in the same stadium.

Some other good reading: (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-some-us-cities-may-have-too-many-pro-sports-teams-2013-11) (http://timandjeni.com/blog/can-seattle-support-six-major-pro-sports-teams/) (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/reports/briefings/bigleagues/briefing-12.aspx)
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
If it's an LA team in another area, maybe, but playing in the same stadium as the Galaxy? Going to be a big brother/little brother thing like Lakers/Clippers.

There have been rumors about Chivas (former Los Angeles Sports Arena site and East Los Angeles) and Los Angeles (Farmers Field) moving out of the StubHub Center. I don't think they'll be sharing for long though. Instead of Lakers/Clippers it could be more like Dodgers/Angels if/when Chivas get a new stadium.

San Diego looks ideal based on its population and only having two other pro franchises. Obviously the more pro teams you have, the more difficult it is for each team to thrive with finite corporate money for premium seating, advertising, etc. MLB and NFL are the most intensive and tend to eat up the resources far faster than NBA or NHL, and MLS can succeed at significantly less than NBA or NHL. This website breaks down the estimated costs for each type of franchise

IIRC, when Vergara (Chivas owner) was awarded a franchise, Garber actually tried to sell him on Houston and San Diego. Problem was Vergara was looking at Los Angeles and reportedly Chicago as well.

I think two things need to sort themselves out in San Diego before any MLS talk can start there:

1) The Chargers situation. Nothing happens with MLS until this get sorted out.
2) Strangely enough, Liga MX actually beat MLS to this market with Xolos in Tijuana. The question is, do Xolos have staying power in Tijuana? If so, MLS isn't coming to San Diego and I don't think there will be much of an effort to bring a team in.

But looking at that first chart, there are some opportunities to expand where MLS wouldn't have a lot of competition and could build very strong supporters bases as a result. Now I think they've underestimated the MLS cost, especially as the league grows, a bit, so I'd ignore some of the markets they say can support a team. But there's some on there that we'd typically ignore that probably, upon closer look, do have the population and business capital to support a team (basically looking at where MLS = yes, other sports = Marginal or better):

- Albuquerque
- Birmingham
- Calgary
- Dayton
- El Paso (which has already authorized a bond issuance to build a publicly financed stadium for an MLS team)
- Greenville/Spartanburg
- Hartford
- Honolulu
- Las Vegas
- Louisville
- Omaha
- Providence
- Richmond
- Rochester
- Sacramento
- San Antonio
- Tucson
- Virginia Beach/Norfolk

Now we can debate the merits of many of those, for instance, Birmingham's analysis does not include all the money that is spent on Bammer and Barn footbaw. That analysis, at least, rules out cities like Phoenix, San Diego, and Minneapolis as already being too saturated. I'm not sure if they are or aren't, but I do at least like the general methodology used. At any rate, I think expanding the footprint even into a smaller market is worth more than a second team playing in LA playing in the same stadium.

The general methodology is fine but there's no way Montreal would be considered over Toronto for an NFL team nor would it be a good place for MLB to go back to. It also doesn't take into account that some of these markets are regional in scope (Denver). I will agree that the Midwest is over-saturated but that's a product of MLB and the NFL having deep roots there.

Also TV has taken a major role in MLS expansion. That's why a second Los Angeles team is much more valuable than any small market. Just look at New York. The Giants and Jets share a stadium. They also happen to be the 4th and 6th most valuable teams in the league and the four teams ahead of the Jets are major market teams (Dallas, New England, Washington and Houston). I don't think sharing a stadium is that big of a deal. FWIW, the Lakers are 2nd most valuable team in the league while the Clippers are 13th. Yes there is a difference but the Clippers are still more valuable than 17 other teams in the league.
 

Renegade

Charge on!
Also TV has taken a major role in MLS expansion. That's why a second Los Angeles team is much more valuable than any small market. Just look at New York. The Giants and Jets share a stadium. They also happen to be the 4th and 6th most valuable teams in the league and the four teams ahead of the Jets are major market teams (Dallas, New England, Washington and Houston). I don't think sharing a stadium is that big of a deal. FWIW, the Lakers are 2nd most valuable team in the league while the Clippers are 13th. Yes there is a difference but the Clippers are still more valuable than 17 other teams in the league.

All very good points, and I don't disagree with you. My point is this: MLS needs to expand its viewership to increase its TV contract. While average attendance is now higher than at the NBA and NHL, the TV viewership pales in comparison. Is expanding the TV footprint better served by having a second LA team or by having a team in another city? Are people around the nation more likely to watch Los Angeles FC vs Colorado Rapids than they are to watch San Antonio FC vs Colorado Rapids? I don't really think so; not if the team is equally good. And will more people in LA, since it's the 2nd largest TV market, tune in to MLS because there's a second team? Or is it a pretty similar number, and you'd just be splitting viewers/fans away from the Galaxy? Basically, does having that second team necessarily increase by a significant amount (more than having them in another city) the aggregate number of MLS fans/viewers in LA? If the answer is clearly yes, then the case for keeping Chivas is made. If not, then they should be moved. I don't know the answer to that question.
 

Chase

Well-Known Member
If it's an LA team in another area, maybe, but playing in the same stadium as the Galaxy? Going to be a big brother/little brother thing like Lakers/Clippers.

Some other good reading: (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-some-us-cities-may-have-too-many-pro-sports-teams-2013-11) (http://timandjeni.com/blog/can-seattle-support-six-major-pro-sports-teams/) (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/reports/briefings/bigleagues/briefing-12.aspx)

Pittsburgh would support a MLS team but couldn't support a NBA team. Soccer has blown up in Pittsburgh the last 5 years, and their new stadium can expand to a decent amount. The Riverhounds are in the USL Pro league and are a feeder club for the Houston Dynamo. Really depends how much the MLS wants to expand and if there will ever be a relegation situation.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
Revs get Bunbury from SKC

Young US already-capped striker who's had injury trouble? Revs are 1 for 1 in that department so far. Pretty pumped.

Bunbury was actually the "next big thing" just a couple years ago before his tore ACL. SKC just didn't have the minutes for him. Excited to see him again.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
All very good points, and I don't disagree with you. My point is this: MLS needs to expand its viewership to increase its TV contract. While average attendance is now higher than at the NBA and NHL, the TV viewership pales in comparison. Is expanding the TV footprint better served by having a second LA team or by having a team in another city? Are people around the nation more likely to watch Los Angeles FC vs Colorado Rapids than they are to watch San Antonio FC vs Colorado Rapids? I don't really think so; not if the team is equally good. And will more people in LA, since it's the 2nd largest TV market, tune in to MLS because there's a second team? Or is it a pretty similar number, and you'd just be splitting viewers/fans away from the Galaxy? Basically, does having that second team necessarily increase by a significant amount (more than having them in another city) the aggregate number of MLS fans/viewers in LA? If the answer is clearly yes, then the case for keeping Chivas is made. If not, then they should be moved. I don't know the answer to that question.

I don't think anyone does to be honest. We will know in the next 5-10 years with New York City and a rebranded Chivas given a chance in Los Angeles.
 

kella

Low IQ fat ass with depression and anxiety
Staff member
Administrator
Operations
Richmond is an interesting city for an MLS team, because it is close to the southern DC exurbs and Charlotesville, both of which contain no less than a few million young people including young families.

lol @ Greenville/Spartanburg and Omaha, though.

And Dayton is one of a few cities on that list that is within an hour of an MLS team already. I know Richmond technically is as well but the population sizes would better support a team there.
 

Renegade

Charge on!
Richmond is an interesting city for an MLS team, because it is close to the southern DC exurbs and Charlotesville, both of which contain no less than a few million young people including young families.

lol @ Greenville/Spartanburg and Omaha, though.

And Dayton is one of a few cities on that list that is within an hour of an MLS team already. I know Richmond technically is as well but the population sizes would better support a team there.

Well, there's cultural reasons to avoid Greenville, but in terms of money, that area is growing and becoming much wealthier with all of the European businesses related to car manufacturing and such that they've brought in. Omaha, though, while small, has a good business community that would probably support a team; no idea about the culture of that working though. And Omaha is another city where you'd need to analyze the spending on college sports - Husker footbaw and Creighton roundball. As to Richmond, I think Norfolk/Virginia Beach will probably get a pro team of some sort before Richmond does.
 

kella

Low IQ fat ass with depression and anxiety
Staff member
Administrator
Operations
I see MLS market as primarily immigrants, Hispanics, and young people, is this inaccurate? I'm not sure how Spartanburg matches up to that demographic, even though it does have a BMW Spikermobile plant. I know a few people my age who lived in Greenville and despised it.
 

Renegade

Charge on!
I see MLS market as primarily immigrants, Hispanics, and young people, is this inaccurate? I'm not sure how Spartanburg matches up to that demographic, even though it does have a BMW Spikermobile plant. I know a few people my age who lived in Greenville and despised it.

I would agree with you that Greenville/Spartanburg, from a cultural standpoint, is not a fit for MLS. It could financially support a team, theoretically, based on the amount of money available, which was the point of the above.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
MLS purchases Chivas from Jorge Vergara. They'll be league owned for the time being.

This team was doomed from the start.
 

TrojanMan

Pink Panther
Mod Alumni
Just make them go away. I understand that LA is an enormous market, and the MLS wants 2 teams there.....just like baseball, basketball, and hockey. But nobody gives 2 shits about Chivas. And rebranding them as Los Angeles FC won't make all that much difference; not when the league's trophy child is the other team in town.

Send them somewhere where they can build their own fanbase.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
Just a hypothetical, what if instead of being named Chivas when they came into the league in 2005 they were named something more inclusive/generic. It has to be said that Chivas was the better team at the then-Home Depot Center from 2006-2008. I'm positive that they would have gotten more fans during that time span. They would not have supplanted Los Angeles as the top team in town but the difference between the two fanbases would not be so enormous.

When they chose Chivas, first they alienated non-Hispanic fans (especially the ones who knew about the Mexican-only stance of the parent club), then the Hispanics who are not Mexican, then the Mexicans who are not Guadalajara fans (no way any self-respecting America supporter who be a fan of this team), and finally the Guadalajara fans who saw this as a joke. That's why this team was doomed from the start.

At the end of the day, any success from a rebrand comes from what happens on the field. It's the difference between an average rebrand (Dallas and New York) or a spectacular rebrand (San Jose and Kansas City).
 

Rutgers Mike

Dr. Sad
All very good points, and I don't disagree with you. My point is this: MLS needs to expand its viewership to increase its TV contract. While average attendance is now higher than at the NBA and NHL, the TV viewership pales in comparison. Is expanding the TV footprint better served by having a second LA team or by having a team in another city? Are people around the nation more likely to watch Los Angeles FC vs Colorado Rapids than they are to watch San Antonio FC vs Colorado Rapids? I don't really think so; not if the team is equally good. And will more people in LA, since it's the 2nd largest TV market, tune in to MLS because there's a second team? Or is it a pretty similar number, and you'd just be splitting viewers/fans away from the Galaxy? Basically, does having that second team necessarily increase by a significant amount (more than having them in another city) the aggregate number of MLS fans/viewers in LA? If the answer is clearly yes, then the case for keeping Chivas is made. If not, then they should be moved. I don't know the answer to that question.

I think the thinking about having a second team in LA or NY as opposed to the cities on that list, is that like in hockey you have a very niche fanbase, but you can pick up casual fans if those teams are in the championship. I don't watch MLS at all, but I might tune in if the Red Bulls could cut the mustard. Using the hockey comparison, The Kings did well in local TV ratings the year they won the Stanley Cup, but nationally that series was one of the lowest rated.

I think in the end it's about finding the right balance between high population areas and areas that are soccer hot beds, because we all saw how the NHL going into non-Hockey markets worked.
 

Renegade

Charge on!
Garber said that any ownership group that wants to buy Chivas will have to build another stadium elsewhere in the LA area. So that's at least addressing one of the points I made above. I wondering if Farmers Field is being designed with MLS in mind?

Also, he said that Minneapolis has a very strong potential ownership group, and that San Diego, Atlanta, Sacramento, and Texas sites are under consideration. His reference to Texas was plural, so I'm guessing San Antonio and Austin unless they are going to give some consideration to El Paso being ready to build a stadium.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
MLS isn't looking at El Paso. Not big enough, doesn't have the demographics and has a small corporate base.

This isn't 2005 when MLS needed investors badly.
 

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
I don't get why the MLS is looking to expand much more at this point. The biggest problem with the league is that the standard of play is bad. I mean, the MLS final was pretty good soccer, but most random games are really bad. Granted, a lot better than it was 10 years ago. But the EPL gets like 2x and 3x ratings on NBC early mornings on the weekends - people will watch good soccer in the country. Sure, MLS doesn't help itself with their awful TV deal and slots, but I'm not exactly getting amped up to watch a random Montreal - New England game. I suppose some of that is because I'm used to watching the Rapids play, to be fair :laughing:

I think if the league can stay at 22 teams for a while (5 or so years) and improve the standard of play, then it could take off. But they're so insistent on adding teams and thereby diluting the talent pool. Or if the league can really start emphasizing attacking play more. The Bundesliga isn't a great league by any means, but tons of people go to games and watch it on TV because tons of goals are scored.

Anyways, rant over. It just bothers me to want to see good soccer in America, and the MLS seemingly screw it up.
 

TrojanMan

Pink Panther
Mod Alumni
I am Deadman on that. I know it's the American way to have +/- 30 teams in each pro league, but all the major leagues in Europe have 20-ish.

I know the circumstances are different. Those other countries really have more like 100 teams spread between various levels/divisions. I don't foresee that happening here any time soon; who would want to start an expansion team if you have to start in Division 3 and work your way up? There's not much money in the first division now.....playing in lower levels would be for peanuts. So, if MLS is going to stick with just a top division (i.e. no promotion/relegation), AT SOME POINT having more teams is okay.

But as Deadman said, the knock on the MLS now is a lower level of play than the Euro leagues. Adding more teams and thinning out rosters makes that a bigger problem. Adding a team to a small/midsize city might help create a few more fans in that particular area, but a team in cities like that won't add tons of television viewers, and that's what the league needs most.
 

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
I think the US could financially support around 30 teams in a first division set up. I would be okay with that, with some tweaks to the set up. I could see 14-16 team conferences that only play each other during the year, and then playoffs that are more than just a one-off game. But I really think the standard of play needs to get better before the MLS thinks about expanding much more. Make the games better, get a better TV deal, pay more to attract more talent, and then expand. The key is to get better talent before expanding rather than expanding without the talent.

And I am somewhat conflicted on this because I think expansion helps the US national team - bigger pool of American players. But I think the league is better served in the long-term with better talent.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
I'm fine at stopping at 24. If Atlanta and Minnesota get teams, the largest markets left without a team are Detroit and Phoenix. Those aren't exactly hot markets.
 

TrojanMan

Pink Panther
Mod Alumni
Well ... Phoenix sort of is a hot market ...






I'll see myself out.

First thing that popped in my head too. Almost posted it, but then noticed there was another page to the thread. Figured I should make sure someone hadn't made the obvious joke already.

smh @ u, deadman. Leave the bad jokes for me.
 
Last edited:

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
You can't leave low hanging fruit like that out there for 2 and a half hours, TroganMong.
 
Last edited:

TrojanMan

Pink Panther
Mod Alumni
I just assumed that when it's hanging so low it's practically sweeping the grass, nobody but me would even want it.
 

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
Chicago trades Austin Berry for allocation money.

Mike Magee is holding out in a contract dispute.

The new shirt sucks.

With Chivas gone, I guess someone has to be the worst run organization in the league. Chicago is well on their way there.

Also I find it funny pretty much every jersey has been leaked a week before jersey week. MLS fail.
 
Last edited:

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
It's that time of year again.

Team: Chicago Fire

Best Case Scenario: Late season form carries over, 4-1-4-1 works, Chicago wins U.S. Open Cup and advances to Eastern Conference Final

Worst Case Scenario: Veteran defense breaks down, Larentowicz is gassed by being the only DM, Magee doesn't repeat last year's magic, attendance drops further, no playoffs and an early U.S. Open Cup exit

Fan Favorite: Mike Magee. Hometown boy does good. Chicago is D.C./Chivas bad without him

Young Player To Look Out For On Your Team: Harrison Shipp. Homegrown player from Notre Dame has played well this pre-season. Hopefully he gets some meaningful playing time this season

Player You Would Like To Drive To Another Club: Bakary Soumare. Not worth his salary. Probably led to Anibaba and Berry being traded. Unfortunately "he's still here" (Fire inside joke)

Opposition Player You Secretly Admire: Thierry Henry. I'll have to think of a new answer next year

Opposition Player You Openly Despise: For the first time in a while, I can't think of one

Do You Have The Right Owner: No. Way to image obsessed to be an effective owner. Doesn't listen to fans. Hires people with no discernible experience for key front office positions. I could go on...

Do You Have The Right Manager: Since the owner hired him, no

What Advice Do You Have For The Manager: Don't buy, rent

What Is The One Thing You Would Change At Your Club: The owner

What Is The One Thing You Would Change In MLS: Go back to best-of-3, first-to-five series in the playoffs and a neutral site MLS Cup

Where Will You Finish: 7th in the East

Who Wins MLS Cup: New York

Will An MLS Team Win The CONCACAF Champions League: No

Who Wins The World Cup: Brazil

Will The US Get Out Of The Group Stage In Brazil: No

Does A CONCACAF Team Make It Out Of The Group Stage In Brazil: Yes, Mexico does then loses in the round of 16 per usual

MLS Predictions

East:
1. New York
2. Philadelphia
3. Kansas City
4. Houston
5. Toronto
6. New England
7. Chicago
8. Columbus
9. D.C.
10. Montreal

West:

1. Los Angeles
2. Seattle
3. San Jose
4. Portland
5. Salt Lake
6. Dallas
7. Colorado
8. Vancouver
9. Chivas

MLS Cup: New York
U.S. Open Cup: Seattle
Supporter's Shield: Los Angeles
Canadian Championship: Toronto
 
Last edited:

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
Sleeper pick. I think Edu and Maidana are going to help the midfield a lot, Berry was a steal and as long as McInerney doesn't slump in the second half of the season again they should be pretty good.
 

silverwheels

PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
I don't follow MLS closely enough to be able to make a statement like that. I am confident that the Whitecaps will suck, though.
 
Top