Utah (Salt Lake) gets a MLS team
 

Press meeting just happened, they are talking about it on the Radio....

So now we have 2 professional sports teams (We do have an IHL and AAA Teams)

http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/index.jsp

I can't believe the MLS is expanding.

You mean AHL. :D

And the fact that they picked Salt Lake over Houston and Philly.

Yeah thats the ticket.

I don't follow the Grizzlies or the Buzz........Just the Jazz and Detroit Lions.

Honestly, it probably makes more sense to go to a smaller big city with less pro teams than to go into a completely saturated market.

True. I'd probably go to games if they put a team here in Sacramento. No way I'm driving all the way to San Jose to see a MLS game.

From what I've heard, they are doing the best (finanicially) of the MLS teams. Didn't they get a soccer stadium built?

I think they may have even shown a profit, something along those lines.

I dunno... I don't follow them. I do know that organized soccer does pretty well all over Nor. Cal, and I would guess that a team in Sacramento could do alright.

I know, haven't they actually contracted/folded teams in the last few years?

I'm not certain, but my gut feeling on this is "no." MLS has been pretty slow and steady, they understand this is going to take time if it ever works. And luckily they have some deep pockets backing this endeaver, because I believe the league on the whole has lost money every single season. I'm pretty sure I heard that one team (I think San Jose) actually turned a profit last season, and I recall that being the first year any team had done so. I'm not sure I'll ever have the time to follow the sport, but I do enjoy soccer and I wish the league the best.

dola. Actually it appears that Tampa Bay and Miami both folded after the 2001 season, so I stand corrected. Still, I don't think that necessarily serves as a warning of inevitable failure of the league.

They folded/contracted two teams two years ago (Atlanta and Tampa Bay, I think).

Their intent was always to expand again, though, and they have had plans in place to expand for a while. This may sound contradictory, but I think the idea is that they felt they were tapping the wrong markets.

Last I checked, next year could be a big year for the MLS. I didn't click on the link to see when the Salt Lake City squad would start playing, but theother three teams they were adding were Rochester (which has a well-supported A League squad), Tulsa (also supposed to be a soccer haven), and Chivas USA in Los Angeles.

That last one is huge. Chivas is one of the richest clubs in Mexico. I read an article recently about its owner. He's a real nutcase. Sounds like the Mark Cuban of Mexican soccer. Supposedly he would be the most internationally known owner in the league the second Chivas USA starts to play (I guess Anschutz, who owns half the league, needs to get out more).

I don't if the San Jose squad is the most successful, but it wouldn't surprise me. All I know is the Galaxy are also doing very well here in LA, and have their own stadium in the Home Depot Center (which will host the MLS Cup this year). I believe the "plans" (never spoken) are to have the CHivas squad be a magnet for expatriated Mexican-Americans, while the Galaxy will be the team conventional white Americans will follow. Adds a little flavor to that rivalry, I think. :)

I think soccer has been making strides in much of the U.S. actually.

CR

Salt Lake will start play in 2005

So bsically the Chivas will be the sell out ticket in LA, and all of 500 people will attend the Galaxy games?

Never had a team in Atlanta, but I wish they did.

and for the record the two contracted teams were 1 original team (Tampa) and 1 expansion team (Miami)

the other expansion team (Chicago) is still going.

http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_n..._mls&fext=.jsp

Oops, all my remarks about San Jose were meant for Los Angeles, that was the team I'm talking about doing well.

here's an interesting article on the finances of the league from SI. Pretty much explains how stadium ownership is the key to making things work until soccer itself is the breadwinner:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soc...ls_preview_ap/

Houston doesn't have an owner. Bob McNair is obviously not interested, because he had every opportunity to do it if he wanted to (with a nice deal on the stadium here -- the possibility of a soccer franchise was included in his agreement with the county sports authority for the stadium). I suspect Philly has the same problem, compounded by also not having a place to play.

No, San Jose is not one of the profitable clubs. Those are believed to be among: Los Angeles (now that they have the Toolbox), Columbus, New England, and Kansas City. In each case, either the club has its own stadium or the I/O owns the stadium it shares with an NFL team (or has a sweetheart lease deal).

Metrostars are widely considered to have a horrible lease. Chicago's supposedly got a good bit better when they went into the alien spaceship monstrosity also known as the renovated Soldier Field. I don't know about San Jose's, Colorado's, DC's, or Dallas' (although something drove them to Dragon Stadium last season).

As noted, it was the Tampa and Miami clubs. They couldn't find an I/O for Tampa and seemed to have tired of having the league hemorrhage money to run it; presumably, the landscape didn't look as promising for stadium development as the other teams that have been assumed by AEG or Hunt. Miami was victimized by an indifferent I/O, which is too bad because they had a good team and a good stadium situation and probably could have made it work if Horowitz had been willing to do what it took organization-wise.

Anschutz keeps a low profile, but I think you'd be surprised just how many places they're active.

I'd guess the Galaxy would still attract the non-Mexican Hispanic community, but I might be wrong.

I think that Houston woukd be a good fit for an MLS team. What the MLS needs now is a decent tv contract. I certainly hope Chivas USA will work but I dont know.

If the NHL can't get a good TV contract, MLS will have to wait a while.

I think Houston would be a good market for MLS, but they need to find someone willing to invest and a good place to play. Although it's way too big, it's possible Reliant could be made to work (depending on what the sports authority would be willing to offer in the way of a lease, and the extent to which the Texans' lease would cut into revenue opportunities -- all assuming that McNair isn't interested). There's also Robertson.

No wsay because there are a lot of America fans as well as other Mexican soccer teams so Chivas won't be an instant sell to Mexicans.

There aren't any other "Mexican" soccer teams in the MLS. Of course fans will still follow their teams in Mexico. This is a whole different league. No reason they wouldn't follow both.

Otherwise, agreed.

CR

I've thought that Raleigh (my old hometown) could do well with an MLS team as well. The only major sports competition are a few minor league teams in baseball (Durham at AAA and Carolina at AA being the most prominent) and the Hurricanes who would be offseason during the MLS calendar anyway. There is an enormous (at least when I was there) base of youth soccer and generally the local colleges have done well at the NCAA level. They've got a very nice place to play at the SAS Soccer Center, which could be upgraded with more seating (it's not that large, but I think could be expanded if needed). I'm surprised no one there is making a push to get a team, though I've read this isn't the end of the expansion wave. I think they're looking to have 16-20 teams by early next decade.

On a side note, I've thought the team should be known as Raleigh-Durham United, or RDU for short, which is the abbreviation for the main airport in the area. Corny, yes, but it seems to work for me.