Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

United, MLS Notes

*Coach Tom Soehn said United will bring 19 players to Kansas City for Saturday's league opener, including Jaime Moreno, who injured his hamstring in the first leg of the Harbour View Champions' Cup series and has resumed training this week. Moreno said he is at about "70 percent." The group will then travel directly to Pachuca for Tuesday's semifinal opener. No players left behind for the K.C. game will rejoin the club in Mexico, unless injuries dictate change. I will expand on Soehn's approach to the two matches in Wednesday's print edition, which will be available late tonight on The Post's Web site.

*Because DCU is under the limit for players under contract, the club is in no hurry to make final roster moves. Cezar, Jeff Curtin and Brandon Owens remain under consideration for the final slots.

*DC and KC were scheduled to play a reserve division match this weekend, but the teams decided to postpone it, in part because of United's trip to Mexico.

*With San Jose rejoining this year and Seattle on the way in 2009, Commish Don Garber said the league will be careful about future expansion.

"We are thinking about what should we be doing with teams 17 and 18 and what we do with teams 19 and 20 and what impact that has on our TV contracts, how does it fit with our player pool and our continued discussions with U.S. Soccer on the player limitations. There are so many different things now that are convincing us that we should take a step back and create a strategic plan before we announce 17 and 18. We do have offers for 17 and 18, two different markets, but we put those deals on hold until we have had a better chance to create our plan."

At the last board meeting, the league formed an expansion committee that will be chaired by Phil Anschutz, "which is pretty remarkable in itself," Garber said in reference to the league's most influential investor who has remained in the background on many league matters. Anschutz apparently does not sit on any committees in other leagues in which he is involved.

By Steve Goff  |  March 25, 2008; 3:57 PM ET
Categories:  D.C. United  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Poplar What?
Next: Morning Kickaround

Comments

Steve, you have outdone yourself today, which is a very difficult feat.

Of course, it has undone my intent to accomplish any work this afternoon.

Thanks...

Posted by: seahawkdad | March 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Dude, I just took four metabolism pills just to keep up with you.

Great job yet again, Steve.

Posted by: Joe Doc | March 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Cezar seems like he has done enough to earn a senior spot if Kpene is gone - I doubt that his agent will get much commission for having his player sign a developmental deal here. Between Curtin and Owens, they both play center-back but Owens can also play right-back (same can be said for P Carroll). By signing undrafted players like P Carroll and Murphy as well as keeping injured J Carroll on the roster, it seems as if Owens went from being a probable signing to a questionable signing at best.

Posted by: Brutus | March 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Is this the first time, at least in recent memory, that Garber has talked about going from 18 to 20 teams?

Posted by: tri-village | March 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Goff, days like these remind me why I check this site 10-15 times a day.

You are a top notch reporter, keep it up!

Posted by: Garret | March 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

OMG, Steve...you are doing it to us on the internet blog posts all day today. En Fuego, baby!!

SG, I know you hear this everyday, but I do not have the words to describe what you mean to us. All I can say is thank you. From the bottom of my heart...thank you indeed, Sir.

So much to digest. All I can say is VAMOS UNITED!!

Posted by: Kosh | March 25, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Are you people trying to date him or get free tickets?

Posted by: RK | March 25, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

What happened to 16? San Jose is 14, even numbers again this year. Seattle will be 15, next year. Does that mean that the Philly deal is done?

Posted by: Matte | March 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Philly is done, probably trying to contract out who puts the ceremonial shovel in the ground when.

Firm offers for 17 & 18 that have been put on hold until the league gets an actual expansion plan? One of those has to be St. Louis. The other is either a secret Miami investor taking advantage of the publicly financed stadium offer that the city is playing with (wasn't there a rumor that Boca Juniors wanted to put an MLS team in either NY or Miami?) or someone self financed. I the only group I remember with a promise of a self financed stadium w/out needing a cooperative government was Vegas.

Posted by: bluemeanies | March 25, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Glad to hear that MLS wants to (now) take a step back from further expansion. I was getting a little concerned that teams 17 & 18 appeared to be getting a little rushed with some speculation putting those clubs on the field as soon as 2011. If they wait until 2014, that would be soon enough IMHO as it will have been 4 years since Philly took the field.

Posted by: NewFoundMadness | March 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

bring them all at once more games for us to watch!!

Posted by: Who Cares | March 25, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I too am glad that expansion has slowed its pace. Aside from the league scheduling and competition issues - you also have to look at the CBA, developmental roles and youth roles. And also - there will need to be a major focus on how to incorporate the major tournaments of SuperLiga and CCL in there.

Posted by: Virginia Blue Blood | March 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Goff: Has Garber or anyone else from the MLS front office said anything about how they will handle divisional alignment and scheduling for a 15-team league? Will they have asymmetrical divisions (8+7) as they did last year (7+6)? Will they go to three five-team divisions for just this one year? I'm almost surprised they didn't let Philly join Seattle next year, contingent on their finding a suitable temporary home, just to avoid these hassles.

Posted by: tri-village | March 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Garber, MLS, and their "strategic plan" can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. If they don't need a fully-funded 18,000-seat stadium in St. Louis, if they'd rather play to 50,000 empty seats in Qwest Field, if they'd rather keep throwing money away on zombie franchises like Kansas City, they deserve to go the way of the NASL. The sooner this joke of a league dies, the better.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, southsidered, all he said was they want to develop a strategic plan before they *announce* teams 17 & 18.

Posted by: Eric in Baltimore | March 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

SSed,

Look up "Horowitz, Ken" to see why St. Louis does not yet have an MLS franchise.

Posted by: Eric B | March 25, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

southsidered does have one good point. The KC franchise is just an ongoing disaster. Apparently, because of loyalty to the Hunt family, MLS is committed to that franchise. Other than that, I can't see a legitimate reason for the commitment made with a new stadium there. While Seattle is a great move, in theory, the lack of a soccer stadium is problematic. Of course, DCU is struggling with an ill-suited facility, but given options, it's an interesting choice by MLS. St. Louis seems more likely to offer a plan for success than either expansion franchise.

Still, any serious MLS fan must realize that the league is already expanding beyond the abilities of the available player pool. Toronto is scrambling to find Canadians, and the rest of the league is desparate to find competent Americans. Further expansion has to await two (perhaps three) developments: More and better American players -- this involves the generational improvements we all hope are coming, and possibly a financial structure and improved play that would make MLS more attractive for top Americans. Similarly, if the MLS' reputation as to the level of play improves enough, and salaries rise, the MLS will be more attractive to talented internationals.

While it almost sounds like a Catch-22, this is really a process that has to build incrementally. If the MLS can increase its popularity, attendance should rise. THe best way to do that is to make the game better -- that is to raise the level of play. As it does get recognized for better play, it will be more attractive to good foreign players, and the increased attendance will allow MLS to pay salaries that will draw better players.

The thing is it seems like a chicken and egg dilemma. It's hard to know which piece needs to advance first. The one thing you know for sure is that if the league expands too quickly, the level of play can only go down, dragging all the franchises with it. St. Louis will have to wait. New York City, too.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | March 25, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

hey southsidered:

you got investors in St. Louis willing to lose 5-10 million a year for the first 4-5 years? how many teams do you think make money, anyway?

Posted by: northzax | March 25, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

St. Louis gets screwed again.
The pro-soccer Mayor in Collinsville passed away two weeks ago.

The politics are now uncertain. With more delays, the City could and probably should pull their deal. They've got $30 mil and 400 acres tied up in this joke.

They were told 2009 and now they are looking at 2011 - unless this delay mean 2012.

Posted by: Screw Garber | March 25, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

southsidered does have one good point. The KC franchise is just an ongoing disaster. Apparently, because of loyalty to the Hunt family, MLS is committed to that franchise. Other than that, I can't see a legitimate reason for the commitment made with a new stadium there. While Seattle is a great move, in theory, the lack of a soccer stadium is problematic. Of course, DCU is struggling with an ill-suited facility, but given options, it's an interesting choice by MLS. St. Louis seems more likely to offer a plan for success than either expansion franchise.

Still, any serious MLS fan must realize that the league is already expanding beyond the abilities of the available player pool. Toronto is scrambling to find Canadians, and the rest of the league is desparate to find competent Americans. Further expansion has to await two (perhaps three) developments: More and better American players -- this involves the generational improvements we all hope are coming, and possibly a financial structure and improved play that would make MLS more attractive for top Americans. Similarly, if the MLS' reputation as to the level of play improves enough, and salaries rise, the MLS will be more attractive to talented internationals.

While it almost sounds like a Catch-22, this is really a process that has to build incrementally. If the MLS can increase its popularity, attendance should rise. The best way to do that is to make the game better -- that is to raise the level of play. As it does get recognized for better play, it will be more attractive to good foreign players, and the increased attendance will allow MLS to pay salaries that will draw better players.

The thing is it seems like a chicken and egg dilemma. It's hard to know which piece needs to advance first. The one thing you know for sure is that if the league expands too quickly, the level of play can only go down, dragging all the franchises with it. St. Louis will have to wait. New York City, too. Frankly, I would have picked either city for relocating KC, ahead of investing in a new stadium there. New Jersey isn't really the draw for top internationals that NYC might be. But, it is what it is. The league probably made poor choices early on because they didn't think about a long-term strategy. I'm glad to read they're determined to move more carefully in the future.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | March 25, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Bring up the players' salaries first. Everything else -- one would think -- should fall into place.

Posted by: Juan-John | March 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

To be clear -- it seems the league's primary strategy has been to get into as many regional markets as quickly as possible. It's an understandable strategy, but it forced the league to make decisions that were probably not optimal for the longer-term. Same with teams that have made personnel decisions that weren't optimal, because they didn't have a lot of options. From here on out, the league needs to be more circumspect.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | March 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The sooner this joke of a league dies, the better.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 05:17 PM
-----------------------------------------

Better for who? Why are you even on this blog then?

Posted by: edgeonyou | March 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Fisch Fry, you didn't give a reason why you think Kansas City is an ongoing disaster. I see a team with a growing fanbase on top of a core group that is every bit as devoted to their team as the most involved DC fans are to theirs, a solid history, a rich local ownership group, and stadium plan that is far more solid than DC United's.

TV fans who don't like seeing empty seats at Arrowhead should be happy that the team will be playing in a 12k seat stadium in 2008. Based on last year's attendance, they'll fill 97% of their capacity, as compared to DC United, who draw about 45% of RFK's capacity.

KC is doing fine, and it's ignorant and low to disparage the improvements the Wizards organization has made and the commitment their supporters have made to the team by calling it a "disaster." Keep in mind that more successful sports franchises than DC United have moved to entirely new cities because of stadium issues, yet people would go rightly ballistic if someone smugly and repeatedly stated that the team should be moved to Vancouver or St. Louis if those cities showed more committment to the team than the District by building a stadium.

Posted by: Mastodon Juan | March 25, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

MLS is smart to take a slow, steady and sure approach to expansion. Expansion takes a lot of coordination and planning -- or it doesn't work. How many people recall the "new" Houston pro soccer team that started immediately after the '94 World Cup?? (I'm one of the (very) few people who actually paid to attend the (single) Houston home game in 1994.) Even more successful ventures like the NASL were hurt when they didn't plan properly for expansion. MSL's long term viability must not be sacrificed to the goal of immediate growth.

Posted by: Curious | March 25, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Got to agree with Juan on this one. There was a point where KC might have moved but they fulfilled the one condition needed to stay: find a new owner. And the direction and dedication they are getting from the new owner is certainly not a drag on the league and it looks to be turning around.

Fisch- Why do you say that NYC is more likely the second proposal put on hold. Miami is the logical candidate seeing as the city council has pretty much said that if there is a team granted they want to build a stadium on the old Orange bowl site. We just need owners.

Posted by: bluemeanies | March 25, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Eric in Baltimore: I know that's literally what was said. But if you can think of a reason to put a deal on hold, other than "we'd rather find another deal", you've got more imagination than I do. This "strategic plan" BS is just the latest gambit for Garber to string expansion hopefuls along while they work on the deals they actually want.

edgeonyou: "Better for who?" Every soccer fan in America.

Screw Garber: yes, I agree, Collinsville should definitely pull the deal. They stuck their necks out to partner with MLS, and MLS has repeatedly strung them along, moved the goalposts, and bent over backwards NOT to give St. Louis a team. It's clear now that MLS was never serious about any of this. If I was a city councilperson in Collinsville, I'd be pushing to kill this deal right now, before I'm left holding the bag and looking like a fool at election time.

Eric B, northzax: indications are, even without the additional partners he's working on bringing in, Jeff Cooper's group was better funded than at least 3 other current MLS ownership groups. That's not the real issue. But don't take my word for it: within the next couple of weeks, Cooper will bravely, foolishly announce new, better-funded partners. It still won't be enough for MLS. Mark my words.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Someone in St Louis just had a heart attack.

St Louis, like it or not is not a top media market. Moving KC or Columbus would make a whole lot more sense than a new club based there.

PS an anonymous blog is saying the two offers are from Las Vegas and St Louis.

Posted by: chilli chill pilli | March 25, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I agree, chilli, but don't hold your breath waiting for MLS to do anything that makes sense. (Seattle Alliance, anyone?)

Somebody hand me my pills.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Miami will probably get a team before New York City. That's because the real estate is definitely there -- notwithstanding the league's prior failure there. I don't think that the franchise has great potential, though. Look at teh baseball team's struggles, as further proof. Stil, the league wants a southern presence, and seems to think Miami is better than Atlanta or the Carolinas.

However, the league really would like to see a New York City team. The question is when is the ideal time to do that. Right now, it seems like that could only hurt a Red Bulls franchise that is struggling to create a loyal fan base, rather than help by creating an instant local rivalry.

The NYC dilemma really points up what the league needs to do first. Focus on the product on the field. That should help the existing franchises become more attractive to fans. While there are markets that are receptive to teams, the price and the demand isn't what it could be.

In six years, the US will have to start putting together a bid for the 2022 World Cup. Six years into an Obama Administration, I think the world would be receptive to that. What leverage this might give the league to get a commitment to the city to help build a world-class facility! Maybe a 66,000 seat stadium that could be reduced to 33,000 after the event. That won't happen unless having an MLS team becomes really desirable - a proven product.

I suspect teams 17 and 18 will have to wait until that process. Teams 18 and 20 probably won't be announced until after Sunil Gulati officially announces the next US World Cup.

Posted by: Fisch Fry | March 25, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Any future World Cup in this country, like the '94 WC, will take place in stadiums that were built primarily for pointyball. MLS franchises will have long since migrated to their own stadiums (except in Seattle, perhaps). Thus, MLS and a World Cup bid will be on two totally separate tracks. Further, a 2022 (or '26 or '30) WC will involve a number of stadiums that don't yet exist. If we want to see the WC in this country again, we'd better hope that most of these stadiums are up to FIFA standards (e.g., being able to accommodate a 75-yard-wide pitch), even though they won't be used much for soccer outside the World Cup and other big events.

Posted by: tri-village | March 25, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

""In six years, the US will have to start putting together a bid for the 2022 World Cup. Six years into an Obama Administration, I think the world would be receptive to that.""

Subtle, I'm right there with ya!

Posted by: delantero | March 25, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Six years into an Obama administration, this country would be scheduling major sports events around Ramadan, but I digress.

southsideed, would you care to explain your selfish little tantrum of a dream scenario, the folding of MLS, could possbily be anything other than a complete travesty for every American soccer fan. I assume your new Fans Soccer League that would rise from the ashes would have its HQ in St Louis?

Posted by: Eric B | March 25, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

The sooner this joke of a league dies, the better.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 05:17 PM
-----------------------------------------

Better for who? Why are you even on this blog then?

Posted by: edgeonyou | March 25, 2008 06:11 PM
-----------------------------------------

edgeonyou: "Better for who?" Every soccer fan in America.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 06:28 PM
-----------------------------------------

Huh? Your answer to my question makes even less sense. Please explain to me how it's better for "every soccer fan in America" if "the sooner this joke of a league dies, the better." What exactly is the benefit I, as a soccer fan, would get?

Posted by: edgeonyou | March 25, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

This so-called joke of a league has would-be investors and cities lined up around the block, and thus is not going to die anytime soon, so it is a moot point.

Posted by: tri-village | March 25, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

The sooner this joke of a league dies, the better.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 05:17 PM

is your name Jim Rome or something. This league is doing ok for being 12 years old. Now go back to your stupid show.

Posted by: united96 | March 25, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

The sooner this joke of a league dies, the better.

Posted by: southsidered | March 25, 2008 05:17 PM

is your name Jim Rome or something. This league is doing ok for being 12 years old. Now go back to your stupid show.

Posted by: united96 | March 25, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I believe that FIFA will not sanction leagues with more than 18 teams, other than those that already have more than 18 (e.g. the EPL). How can MLS talk blithely about the 19th and 20th teams?

Posted by: Clark | March 25, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Anschutz is chairing the committee? "...The Emperor is coming here?!...We shall double our efforts!!..."

Posted by: FC Uptown | March 25, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

I wondered the same thing earlier today, so I asked someone more knowledgeable than I am.

Its possible one of the loopholes, if the 18 team rule is in effect, is that its 18 teams in the top division per country. If we had two teams in Canada we would be okay with 18 in the US.


Could be wrong, which is why we have Goff to investigate and inform us on these things

I believe that FIFA will not sanction leagues with more than 18 teams, other than those that already have more than 18 (e.g. the EPL). How can MLS talk blithely about the 19th and 20th teams?

Posted by: Clark | March 25, 2008 10:30 PM

Posted by: WC | March 25, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

I think Blatter was blowing more hot air...

Posted by: RK | March 25, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Hi, My name is Eric B and I'm an idiot. I don't know my left from my right, but I'll keep saying whatever Fox News or conservative columnists tell me to think . . " Six years into an Obama administration, this country would be scheduling major sports events around Ramadan, but I digress.""

Posted by: Air Ick Bee | March 25, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

what about atlanta? its always been mentioned

Posted by: steve | March 25, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

MLS does need to slow down, I'm glad that Philly will be getting thier own stadium, just as Toronto did, but to have Seattle playing in Quest field is not good. I understand that the team and league are recieving some benefitis from Paul Allen (microsoft), but it should almost be a prerequisit (spelling?) to be accepted as an expansion team. I feel that having soccer specific stadiums will be the key to growing this league. Having teams play in half empty football stadiums is not a good way to present the league. Also, it takes away from the intimacy of the match. One stadium I am really excited about is the New York Red Bulls' Red Bull Park. Other teams may not have the money to spend on a stadium that extravagent, but it is definatly a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Steve-O | March 26, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Funny that MJ would talk about United "only" filling 46% of RFK... exactly what percent of Giants Stadium do the MetroDonkey's fill? 12-15%? Maybe?

Here's to the Donkey's filling 45-55% of a 30k seat SSS.

Posted by: AlecW81 | March 26, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Does anybody know when single game tickets go on sale?

my prediction: NYC, Montreal, Miami, and....my St. Louis, but I feel like mls thiks the market is too small.

Posted by: Skyler | March 26, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Does anybody know when single game tickets go on sale?

my prediction: NYC, Montreal, Miami, and....maybe St. Louis, but I feel like mls thiks the market is too small.

Posted by: Skyler | March 26, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

San Antonio is the surprise city to get the next expansion. Their previous mayor put into motion the proceedings to get the next team but instead Houston stepped in and grabbed. With a MLB stadium going up between Austin and San Antonio there is additional space in the quarry to build a MLS stadium as well of of I-35. The demographics of San Antonio are also perfect for a Latin American tie in.

Posted by: Sleeper City | March 26, 2008 4:31 AM | Report abuse

San Antonio is the surprise city to get the next expansion. Their previous mayor put into motion the proceedings to get the next team but instead Houston stepped in and grabbed. With a MLB stadium going up between Austin and San Antonio there is additional space in the quarry to build a MLS stadium as well of of I-35. The demographics of San Antonio are also perfect for a Latin American tie in.

Posted by: Sleeper City | March 26, 2008 4:31 AM | Report abuse

The current mayor of San Antonio hates soccer. NGH.

Posted by: sammie | March 26, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

If a stadium is built outside the city limits and an MLS franchise moves in, who cares what the mayor thinks?

Posted by: tri-village | March 26, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

what about atlanta? its always been mentioned

Posted by: steve | March 25, 2008 11:58 PM

Steve, there is absolutely no buzz down here about a MLS team. None. Land is plentiful and relatively cheap, so the stadium wouldn't be the stumbling block. But Atlanta has the. worst. fans. in. the. world. intheWORLD! I remember when I first moved here, the Braves couldn't even sell out an NLCS game 6, and it hasn't changed much. It's all Georgia Football down heah.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, until someone steps forward with plans to bring MLS to Atlanta, I don't think there will be much movement.

At least we got the Dream here! Go WNBA!

Posted by: RK | March 26, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Damn, I was actually looking forward to the reserve game this weekend.

Posted by: Chico | March 26, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

I can only hope that if MLS ever comes to San Antonio, there will be little or no involvement by the people who provided the woefully inadequate venue for those recent preseason matches involving DCU and several other clubs.

Posted by: tri-village | March 26, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

With regard to the alleged 18-team limit, this was discussed on this blog a while back. Actually, what the proponents were aiming for was a 34-game limit, because they were concerned about fixture congestion. This translates into an 18-team limit only for leagues with a traditional single-table format. In any event, I don't believe the proposal has ever been formally adopted by FIFA, but I'm not sure about that.

Posted by: tri-village | March 26, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

BENNY'S ON-LINE CHAT - TODAY

D.C. United veteran Ben Olsen will be online Wednesday, March 26 at 3 p.m. ET to take your questions about the team, his career and the upcoming season.

Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301174.html

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | March 26, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

We soccer fans down here in Florida are sick of hearing all the negative talk about our sport support. We want MLS and we will support it.
www.miamisoccerfan.com

Posted by: Julio | March 26, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

A couple of hundred fans supporting an imaginary team and having an owner willing to spend millions to buy into the league and build a stadium are two entirely different things.

Posted by: RowdyRoddyPiper | March 26, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

"Funny that MJ would talk about United "only" filling 46% of RFK... exactly what percent of Giants Stadium do the MetroDonkey's fill? 12-15%? Maybe?Here's to the Donkey's filling 45-55% of a 30k seat SSS."

21%: 4500 fewer fans in mean attendance in a stadium 32000 seats larger than RFK.

But nice job ignoring the point, which is that Kansas City doesn't do that badly in attendance but played in a vast stadium where the empty seats were glaringly obvious. It's that TV viewer perception that leads to the "move KC" sentiment, not any factors with the team, which is moving in the right direction.

The reason I gave percentage of capacity is to turn the tables on the person who called KC a disaster and said they should be moved. RFK will have a far higher proportion of glaringly obviously unsold seats than Kansas City's stadium will. Because I didn't see any NY fan calling for KC to me moved, the Meadowlands isn't relevant.

KC is doing fine, and the call for them to be moved was based on ignorance.

Posted by: Mastodon Juan | March 26, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Steven or anyone else,

Any word about the English language television rights for SuperLiga or CCL?

SuperLiga matches on DC's schedule card have ESPN2 and FSC listed as broadcasters.

Posted by: Virginia Blue Blood | March 26, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I've looked it up before and don't feel like doing it now, but KC's attendance has never been good. I think they may lead the league in matches below 10k. That would look bad in any stadium save your local high school field.

Posted by: RK | March 26, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

St.Louis is the strong fav to be the 17th team so should be coming in 2011 or 2012. And I figure Miami or Montreal will be the 18th team. MLS can take a few years and around 2016 expand the 19th and 20teams to Atlanta and New York. That would work big team and im sure all the teams by then will have their own 20,000 to 25,000 seated stadiums with average league attendance of at leats 20,000.

Posted by: Kevin | March 26, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"I've looked it up before and don't feel like doing it now, but KC's attendance has never been good."

RK, in 2003 KC outdrew DC with 15573 fans per game. They barely outdrew DC, but they did outdraw them. That says to me that your statement that "KC's attendance has never been good" is not true.

Once again, assertions that have a vague ring of truth are taken as facts and repeated until everyone "knows" them.

KC's doing fine. They'll have a stadium before DC, and so they'll be financially successful (i.e., not running a deficit) before DC.

Posted by: Mastodon Juan | March 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Damn, I was actually looking forward to the reserve game this weekend.

Posted by: Chico | March 26, 2008 07:45 AM
==========================================

You are being facetious, aren't you? Or were you planning to be in KC this weekend?

Posted by: tri-village | March 26, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

As a life-long St. Louisan, (supported the Stars from '67 till '77) I'm dying to have a team.

However, after the tens, hundreds? of millions the league has lost since '96, the current criteria are as follows: 1st, money/ownership, 2nd, more money/ownership and finally, and most importantly, money/ownership.

History, tradition, fan support? Well, that's very sweet, but until the league becomes a truly established national presence, it's all about "The Benjamins".

Just as we got strung along till Philly got their money/ownership in place to get a team, I find out today that Montreal's effort is REALLY heating up.

Mark my words, this "strategic planning" gambit is the latest stall till Montreal gets it's numbers together and they'll be chosen - larger, sexier market, instant derby with Toronto, etc. If you were a league run by the above criteria, who would you pick? This is not a trick question.

Posted by: SteJen | March 27, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Chivas moving to Las Vegas would take care of that application to the league. RSL is stabilizing with the Sandy Stadium. But, apart from quality ownership Chivas is currently the weakest link in the league. They have poor attendance, rent a stadium, and have largely been a failed marketing attempt aimed at Latino fans.

Posted by: JB | April 7, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company