Expansion Rumors Megathread
- Thread starter MagnusPax
- Start date
MagnusPax
Registered
I've seen a lot of nice stadiums designs, but rarely have I seen finished stadiums that looked anything like their PR designs. So while I like the designs I'm doubtful that it will actually look like that.
Still Sacramento would be a great market, although I prefer vacation away games like Miami or San Diego over Sacramento.
Still Sacramento would be a great market, although I prefer vacation away games like Miami or San Diego over Sacramento.
Hopefully, it's a March/April game and you can drive from there up to Tahoe to ski.
MagnusPax
Registered
I'm a 136 year old German patent clerk, do you see me skiing or enjoying the beach in San Diego or Miami?
franchise646
Registered
BREAKING: David Beckham closing in on deal for soccer stadium in Overtown, say sources. Privately-owned https://t.co/66BSIz4zoK
— Doug Hanks (@doug_hanks) December 4, 2015
It's called Value Engineering. Every architectural design starts out with all of the bells & whistles to make the ideal project. Once the construction numbers come in and the client gets sticker-shock, VE begins and a list is made of what a la carte items can be axed correlating to X-dollars savings. The Renderings are always based off of the ideal design - to sell it to the client / investors / marketing&PR, however it's rarely updated after VE because what's the point, the project is being built how it has to be built to be within the budget.
Not MLS, but looks like SF to NASL finally:
Kezar makes a ton of sense, especially if they spend some money to renovate and upgrade. Could be a very nice 10-15k stadium in a great location.
BREAKING: I'm hearing that the NASL has accepted Ricardo Stanford-Geromel's San Francisco-based expansion bid into the league (1/3)
— Evan Ream (@EvanReam) December 4, 2015
Sources are telling me that the SF NASL team will be announced after the Super Bowl and aims to begin play in 2017 (2/3)
— Evan Ream (@EvanReam) December 4, 2015
Sources also telling me that Stanford-Geromel's group, which includes local ownership, believe they can get a downtown stadium in SF (3/3)
— Evan Ream (@EvanReam) December 4, 2015
Kezar makes a ton of sense, especially if they spend some money to renovate and upgrade. Could be a very nice 10-15k stadium in a great location.
I'd like to chime in on this as an ex-San Franciscan.
First off, I love SF and I love the IDEA of soccer in the City. But I have been questioning NASL's entrance into SF since there were rumors about it. San Francisco is actually a pretty amazing sports city. But it is a BIG league city. Minor leagues just do not do well there for many reasons. I was a season ticket holder of the San Francisco Bulls. A third tier minor league hockey team. They lasted a year and half (the folded mid season). They played in an oooooold arena on the outskirts of the city called the Cow Palace (lol. But actually where the San Jose Sharks played their first two seasons). It was in a pretty dreadful location. Attendance took a nose dive once the 12/13 NHL Lockout ended. No one had any interest in seeing a minor league team play when the majors were back.
Another huge factor for minor league teams in a place like SF is the cost of living. How are these players on low wages supposed afford a $3.5k/month 2 bedroom apartment? The housing in SF is INSANE right now. Much worse than NYC. The cost of living for everything else is inflated as well. This was a huge issue for the SF Bulls.
Downtown stadium? No. Way. Absolutely not going to happen. Look at how difficult it has been for the Warriors trying to get a Mission Bay location going. And these guys think they are just going to be able to plot a minor league stadium right in the middle of "downtown" SF? San Francisco has a VERY vocal NIMBY population. Especially right now.
There aren't too many great stadium options as it stands. Kezar is the obvious selection right now. They have done a lot of renovations over the last several years and it is a nice little stadium. I do, however, think that people are over exaggerating it's "great location". It is a block away from the N Judah line which is great. But the N in that part of the city can be super unreliable. And I doubt they are going to line them up after games like they do outside of AT&T park. It's a little difficult to get there in a car. You'd have to come from 101 and drive down Fell from the East. Or take 19th to Lincoln from the west. The weather in that part of the city can be pretty bad in the summer as well. SF has some serious microclimates, so thick/wet fog and 50 weather is pretty standard on a summer night. I could see that being a huge deterrent for people to go to the games.
Finally, I never really felt like SF was much of a soccer city. I never met anyone who really talked about the Quakes. There're a lot of soccer leagues, but I don't know if that really translates into fans.
Again, I love the idea of soccer in SF. I would absolutely become a STH if I still lived there. But I just don't think SF has the interest to support it. I REALLY hope they prove me wrong, though!
First off, I love SF and I love the IDEA of soccer in the City. But I have been questioning NASL's entrance into SF since there were rumors about it. San Francisco is actually a pretty amazing sports city. But it is a BIG league city. Minor leagues just do not do well there for many reasons. I was a season ticket holder of the San Francisco Bulls. A third tier minor league hockey team. They lasted a year and half (the folded mid season). They played in an oooooold arena on the outskirts of the city called the Cow Palace (lol. But actually where the San Jose Sharks played their first two seasons). It was in a pretty dreadful location. Attendance took a nose dive once the 12/13 NHL Lockout ended. No one had any interest in seeing a minor league team play when the majors were back.
Another huge factor for minor league teams in a place like SF is the cost of living. How are these players on low wages supposed afford a $3.5k/month 2 bedroom apartment? The housing in SF is INSANE right now. Much worse than NYC. The cost of living for everything else is inflated as well. This was a huge issue for the SF Bulls.
Downtown stadium? No. Way. Absolutely not going to happen. Look at how difficult it has been for the Warriors trying to get a Mission Bay location going. And these guys think they are just going to be able to plot a minor league stadium right in the middle of "downtown" SF? San Francisco has a VERY vocal NIMBY population. Especially right now.
There aren't too many great stadium options as it stands. Kezar is the obvious selection right now. They have done a lot of renovations over the last several years and it is a nice little stadium. I do, however, think that people are over exaggerating it's "great location". It is a block away from the N Judah line which is great. But the N in that part of the city can be super unreliable. And I doubt they are going to line them up after games like they do outside of AT&T park. It's a little difficult to get there in a car. You'd have to come from 101 and drive down Fell from the East. Or take 19th to Lincoln from the west. The weather in that part of the city can be pretty bad in the summer as well. SF has some serious microclimates, so thick/wet fog and 50 weather is pretty standard on a summer night. I could see that being a huge deterrent for people to go to the games.
Finally, I never really felt like SF was much of a soccer city. I never met anyone who really talked about the Quakes. There're a lot of soccer leagues, but I don't know if that really translates into fans.
Again, I love the idea of soccer in SF. I would absolutely become a STH if I still lived there. But I just don't think SF has the interest to support it. I REALLY hope they prove me wrong, though!
Looks like Beckham got contracts under agreement for all needed properties already for his overtown stadium, with the exception of City/County land which will be purchased at fair market value. Assuming MLS approves the site, it should be good to go. Very small, but apparently big enough for a stadium. (On my phone, can't find link to article)
As for SF NASL. It ain't gonna happen, also that Evan Ream guy frequently tweets false information.
As for SF NASL. It ain't gonna happen, also that Evan Ream guy frequently tweets false information.
franchise646
Registered
MLS announces owners' support for expansion to 28 teams. Also approved Beckham's stadium site in Miami.
— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) December 5, 2015
looks like we are going to 28.
Last edited:
I really like the ASG rule. No more top stars dropping out like pussies because of an ankle that got a paper cut. It's a game for the fans and they want to see the top players play.
The league may eventually have to do an inter-league relegation system so there's MLS1 and MLS2. I don't see how 28+ teams can work in soccer with the schedule and travel. Imagine when soccer really takes off and there's like 36-42 teams.
The league may eventually have to do an inter-league relegation system so there's MLS1 and MLS2. I don't see how 28+ teams can work in soccer with the schedule and travel. Imagine when soccer really takes off and there's like 36-42 teams.
Two leagues of 20 teams with pro/rel?
I think Wahl asked if it was 30 teams would they do a 20 and 10 split with pro/rel. Garbs said they haven't looked into anything like that.
I've heard this suggestion one to many times not to ask - how the hell would it ever make sense for MLS to relegate half its teams? I can't envision even one single reason for this being a potential reality.
A comment I saw on reddit that makes a lot of sense:
"If MLS isn't going to do the "FIFA approved" thing of the 18-20 full table schedule (which they already said bye bye to) then 28 teams makes sense. You can split the league into 2-14 team conferences and 4-7 team divisions. Then each team can play every other divisional team twice, home and away (12 games), then ever other team in the league once (21 games), plus one additional out of division game. Making for the current 34 regular season game total."
"If MLS isn't going to do the "FIFA approved" thing of the 18-20 full table schedule (which they already said bye bye to) then 28 teams makes sense. You can split the league into 2-14 team conferences and 4-7 team divisions. Then each team can play every other divisional team twice, home and away (12 games), then ever other team in the league once (21 games), plus one additional out of division game. Making for the current 34 regular season game total."
I think two teams that we will see eventually in the league are Detroit City and Indy Eleven. DCFC could have the best fanbase in the NPSL and looking to move up. Also helps that it is a top 15 media market. Indy has the best attendance IIRC in the NASL.
Outside of that...I think that a team somewhere in the Carolinas would make sense.
8 new clubs, taking it to 28, will bring in nearly $1B to the league in expansion fees. That's a lot of money to inject into a league supposedly losing money - granted, expansion fees are like a ponzi scheme if that's the sole source of positive revenue for certain teams - which it is for nearly half the league per a recent Forbes article for 2014 revenue.
Also, with so many teams, parity is the new Unicorn - it won't exist because due to numbers alone (unless parity actually refers to those that don't win), each team will only have a 3.57% chance of winning during a given season (all things being equal). With the current rules, and that many teams, once a club gets in to a funk, they'll never be able to pull themselves out without the ability to spend above the current cap. MLS can keep their Cap if they want, just institute a luxury tax on those that bust the upper threshold. Cheap owners have their operating expenses paid for via Lux Tax, and ambitious owners can field the teams they want.
As LionNYC mentioned above, 30 teams would make for a great Inter-MLS 20/10 promotion/regulation league(s). The lower league, MLS2, would still have the MLS moniker and moxy, and there would be extra interest created - which teams are primed to win MLS1, Relegate from MLS1, and Promote from MLS2. And the Cosmos will still be looking on from the outside saying what if & if only.....
And yet..... NYCFC still may be in Yankee Stadium if DeBlasio somehow wins reelection.....
Also, with so many teams, parity is the new Unicorn - it won't exist because due to numbers alone (unless parity actually refers to those that don't win), each team will only have a 3.57% chance of winning during a given season (all things being equal). With the current rules, and that many teams, once a club gets in to a funk, they'll never be able to pull themselves out without the ability to spend above the current cap. MLS can keep their Cap if they want, just institute a luxury tax on those that bust the upper threshold. Cheap owners have their operating expenses paid for via Lux Tax, and ambitious owners can field the teams they want.
As LionNYC mentioned above, 30 teams would make for a great Inter-MLS 20/10 promotion/regulation league(s). The lower league, MLS2, would still have the MLS moniker and moxy, and there would be extra interest created - which teams are primed to win MLS1, Relegate from MLS1, and Promote from MLS2. And the Cosmos will still be looking on from the outside saying what if & if only.....
And yet..... NYCFC still may be in Yankee Stadium if DeBlasio somehow wins reelection.....
Last edited:
Similar threads
