Expansion Rumors Megathread

It’s good that they got out of that lease but where are they gonna build the stadium? Can they build it in suburbs as long as there is good public transit link? Been to Chicago and while it’s not NYC their public transit isn’t half bad.
 
They are copying Cubs logo and using generic garbage name. Goddamit. Why do they think the fans want this?

thats the thing, the current ownership i think banned like half supporters groups so is there even that many left? apparently they got a new investor last year so this is more his doing wanting to start from scratch really.
 
Does anyone anywhere actually refer to it as Chicago City? Never heard that before although to be fair I'm a New Yorker who's never been there. Seems like an odd name choice out of all the things they could've called it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul and mgarbowski
Does anyone anywhere actually refer to it as Chicago City? Never heard that before although to be fair I'm a New Yorker who's never been there. Seems like an odd name choice out of all the things they could've called it.
I mean, it’s not like there’s a Chicago County they could be confused for. I mean, the whole “city” thing, I would surmise stems from multiple teams in the same area. Then, one decides to stake a claim to the city proper, not just the whole area.

Their name is fine. It’s actually a good name. If anything, drop the Chicago. Just be Fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul
I mean, it’s not like there’s a Chicago County they could be confused for. I mean, the whole “city” thing, I would surmise stems from multiple teams in the same area. Then, one decides to stake a claim to the city proper, not just the whole area.

Their name is fine. It’s actually a good name. If anything, drop the Chicago. Just be Fire.
Right. It's not like it's one of those original MLS names that really needed changing. They weren't the Wizards or the Burn or the Metrostars. Heck, most of the names original to MLS are pretty good - Sounders, Timbers, Galaxy, Rapids, Union, Earthquakes and, yes, Fire.
 
Right. It's not like it's one of those original MLS names that really needed changing. They weren't the Wizards or the Burn or the Metrostars. Heck, most of the names original to MLS are pretty good - Sounders, Timbers, Galaxy, Rapids, Union, Earthquakes and, yes, Fire.
Eh, Galaxy is kinda cheesy but they can't change it now.

Anyone else rooting for Sacramento bid just so MLS can end strings of shitty ass expansion franchise names?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vallos and Ulrich
Eh, Galaxy is kinda cheesy but they can't change it now.

Anyone else rooting for Sacramento bid just so MLS can end strings of shitty ass expansion franchise names?
I think the Galaxy was a bad play on/trying to harken back to the Cosmos.

And being the Galaxians.
 
When they submitted their expansion bid, they had an ownership dispute and dropped the Republic name. They have since reconciled that conflict so they will be Republic.
Sacramento Republic?
Isn't that just as bad as "United" or "Inter" or "FC"?
 

MLS release mentions Sacramento and St. Louis by name as presenting to the board later this summer. High probability they'll get in, with #30 announced next year. Current Phoenix as the front runner for that spot, with Charlotte and Indy looking motivated to compete.

For structure with 30, I think they should copy the NBA. Have three divisions per conference for scheduling purposes and the division winners automatically qualify, but playoff seeding is division agnostic, i.e. division winners plus five wildcards qualify, but seeding is based on points only, and higher seed always hosts. Play everyone once (29 games), your division a second time (4 games) and then one other conference opponent (with some teams having protected rivals for this final game).

EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST | Montreal, New England, New York City, NY Red Bulls, Philadelphia
MIDWEST | Minnesota, Chicago, Toronto, Columbus, Cincinnati
SOUTHEAST | Nashville, Atlanta, DC United, Orlando, Miami

WESTERN CONFERENCE
CENTRAL | Sporting KC, St. Louis, Dallas, Austin, Houston
NORTHWEST | Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake, Colorado
SOUTHWEST | Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles, LA Galaxy, Las Vegas*

PROTECTED RIVALS
Montreal | Toronto
NY Red Bulls | DC United
Chicago | St. Louis
Sporting KC | Colorado

I split rivals not based on how significant the rivalry is, but how likely the teams are to develop rivalries against the other four teams in the division, because the rivalry itself would be protected and always played twice a year. (For example, you could move DC United to the Northeast, Montreal to the Midwest, and Cincinnati to the Southeast, but I thought Montreal would rather play New England and the New York teams twice than Minnesota, Chicago, and the Ohios, and Cincinnati would rather play the other Midwest teams twice than the South and Floridas. DC United could go either way.)

*Changed from Phoenix
 
Last edited:
MLS release mentions Sacramento and St. Louis by name as presenting to the board later this summer. High probability they'll get in, with #30 announced next year. Current Phoenix as the front runner for that spot, with Charlotte and Indy looking motivated to compete.

For structure with 30, I think they should copy the NBA. Have three divisions per conference for scheduling purposes and the division winners automatically qualify, but playoff seeding is division agnostic, i.e. division winners plus five wildcards qualify, but seeding is based on points only, and higher seed always hosts. Play everyone once (29 games), your division a second time (4 games) and then one other conference opponent (with some teams having protected rivals for this final game).

EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST | Montreal, New England, New York City, NY Red Bulls, Philadelphia
MIDWEST | Minnesota, Chicago, Toronto, Columbus, Cincinnati
SOUTHEAST | Nashville, Atlanta, DC United, Orlando, Miami

WESTERN CONFERENCE
CENTRAL | Sporting KC, St. Louis, Dallas, Austin, Houston
NORTHWEST | Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake, Colorado
SOUTHWEST | Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles, LA Galaxy, Phoenix

PROTECTED RIVALS
Montreal | Toronto
NY Red Bulls | DC United
Chicago | St. Louis
Sporting KC | Colorado

I split rivals not based on how significant the rivalry is, but how likely the teams are to develop rivalries against the other four teams in the division, because the rivalry itself would be protected and always played twice a year. (For example, you could move DC United to the Northeast, Montreal to the Midwest, and Cincinnati to the Southeast, but I thought Montreal would rather play New England and the New York teams twice than Minnesota, Chicago, and the Ohios, and Cincinnati would rather play the other Midwest teams twice than the South and Floridas. DC United could go either way.)

That's just too sensible for MLS.