SAN ANTONIO FC and NEW YORK CITY FC announce partnership.
- Thread starter ALBNYfan
- Start date
Not too shabby. Nice stadium, usually crowds over 6k, nice atmosphere. Not a bad place for our young'ns to get some game time....assuming we actually send anyone down to get some time.
I think the proximity is a small issue, the real big deal is the Spurs parent company and CFG working together which could be nothing, or be the real big deal of this partnership.
man i wanted rochester since it was so close ( though i think NE has them) or what othermentioned: what about harrisburg city islanders ? i mean they have same colors and have "city" in the name
hmmm....maybe nothing....unless san antonio wants to use nycfc connections to get their MLS bid accepted? maybe some youth team collaboration in terms of tourneys etc
Weird, considering there is a MUCH closer unaffiliated USL clubs.
true but not unheard of....i think colorado and charlotte independence have an affiliation
MLS rules say you are supposed to have a USL affiliate. It wasn't really a case of thinking they might not bother - they were under pressure to get one arranged before the start of the season.
Which clubs?
Not all USL clubs are on equal footing budget wise. Some simply put a team on the field at a bare bones budget, while others such as San Antonio have a more in depth organization better suited to develop young players. Location really does not matter a whole ton unless we plan on shifting players back and forth constantly, which we haven't been doing. If they want just want to send a couple guys down for the season, or most of the season, a flight is not a big difference from bus ride.
That's about par for the course.... we all expected stadium progress based on original club/league statements [crickets]....
This is the conventional wisdom, and many MLS teams have done it.
But... why?
Running a USL team is usually a money-losing proposition. There is also very minimal movement between USL and MLS teams during the year. MLS rosters sizes are large enough to provide depth and flexibility in the event of injuries. Plus we have a summer transfer window.
If I'm Vieira or CFG, why do I care about keeping a 27 year old player in the organization who can't even make the top 25?
It seems to make more sense to keep a U-23 team (the LI Rough Riders) for academy graduates who weren't quite good enough to get signed at 18/19, or choose college and need to remain with the organization so we can keep rights on them. But by age 24, you're competing against all the top 17, 18, and 19 year olds in our academy for developmental spots at the end of our bench, and not likely to win them.
A full reserve team in a D2 league seems way too high cost/low reward.
depends....i think RB II have players i think 19+ so they can include them if they are not in college.....thats one benefit for a II team...have them under your coaches etc for a couple more years then breaking them into first team. and a full season is better than just may-Aug schedule
Looks like we found our place to send our SuperDraft picks that won't be making minutes on the field.
Also, given the distance from NYC, I think San Antonio FC was chosen as we got the best deal with them in terms of playing our players, formations, etc.
Also, given the distance from NYC, I think San Antonio FC was chosen as we got the best deal with them in terms of playing our players, formations, etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
