Discussion in 'Montreal Impact' started by Cashcleaner, Mar 14, 2008.
Article continues here: http://tfc.american-soccer-news.com/?p=30
Man, just imagine how well they would draw playing teams from other Canadian cities in an all-Canadian League.
Really, can't his points be expanded to just that.
No, he only really talks about Toronto and Montreal. He even starts by mentioning that Edmonton and Calgary were part of the problem that brought down the NASL. So if you include Vancouver, that would be a 3 team Canadian league with full support. It would be like the Portuguese league of North America. Three insanely popular teams and a bunch of other really really weak teams. The title race would be down to 3 teams every year. What fun is it. Why not let them join MLS. At most it'll be 3 Canadian teams and the cross border nature of MLS will mean that advertisers will be more willing to pay since they can get their ads into the largest markets in both countries.
^ I agree. I think a Canadian domestic soccer league could work (it does for gridiron football), but with the sport generally overlooked outside of the urban areas, how well could most teams really do in terms of attendance and viewing audience? MLS is probably the best way to go and just have 2-3 teams representing the country that way.
No, you're not expanding his point, you are attempting to convert it to your point. I didn't realize the role of moderators was to rewrite other people's posts to suit their own needs... If you (or any of the numerous other similar posters) want to cry about MLS awarding an expansion team to Toronto (or perhaps in future to Montreal or Vancouver), address those concerns to Mr. Garber and the expansion committee. MLS chose to admit TFC as a member of the league voluntarily. I assume they did so because they felt it was a sound ownership group and a solid market. At least so far, they have been proven right (time will tell if TFC's support remains strong into the future). If you could choose to own (and be financially responsible for) either Toronto or Kansas City/Columbus/RSL, which one would you choose today?
In 2004, when MLSE was busy negotiating for an expansion franchise, how many US cities were doing the same? If there had been a US city willing and able to pony up for a team then, I suspect there would be no Toronto FC. Perhaps it's the success of TFC (off the pitch!) that has lead to the current interest in expansion franchises? In any case, when MLS decided to admit a Canadian team, it ceased to be only an American League. Deal with it. If you want to discourage future Canadian expansion teams, the best method would be to get out there and sell out your home games all season long, not complain that we shouldn't be in the league.
Bite me, exactly where did I rewrite his post? - I gave my opinion of the story that is linked. Me, another mod, you, or any other poster can give their opinion of the original article and that is all I did.
Additionally, you'll see the "" indicating that the statement was tounge and cheek.
I have no problem with Toronto in the league. But I look forward to the day when soccer is strong eough in Canada for it to have it's own league.
But until then, Piss off.
Nice... is this some kind of Moderator code? "Bite me, Piss off"... you're really contributing to the exchange of ideas in the online forum there aren't you? That's your freebie used up I would say.
You saying "his post can be expanded to say that" IS rewriting it... when your version isn't what he said at all. You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to recurve someone else's... and if you don't like bristly feedback, maybe you shouldn't be handing it out so freely... especially as a "moderator".
Shouldn't the headline read "Why MLS needs Toronto, and maybe Montreal, but honestly the rest of Canada isn't that big of a deal in terms of soccer, so I think it would be a stretch to say that MLS would need the whole of the country, but I could be wrong." Kind of fills up the title line though. Now that's rewriting.
I strongly support the entry of both Montreal and Vancouver into MLS.
That said, I have to wonder exactly which "problems" the author is referring to when he says "I’m not going to come out and say that Canadian teams are the answer to the MLS’ problems — the expansion boom in the NASL’s heyday certainly wasn’t helped by franchises like those in Edmonton and Calgary — but the signs that are coming from the soccer community in North America’s most European city are encouraging for an MLS team."
In all honesty, I believe a team in Montreal will bring more fans and exposure to the sport and the league than a team put in Miami, Milwaukee, Oklahoma, Phoenix...
The same may not apply to Vancouver, but if they were to get their plans figured out over on the west coast, I think they would have potential to be a strong club as well.
This may be, but I think St. Louis, NY2, Portland, and Vegas (or Phoenix) are more important for an American based pro league.
TFC's success in the stands has nothing to do with Seattle, Philadelphia, or St. Louis and their desire to join the league. The self-fellatio of Toronto fans aside, the process in all of those cities was well underway before Toronto sold a ticket. Philadelphia's group didn't register officially with the state to lobby for a stadium until 2.07, but they were founded in mid-2006.
Now that is true. If you take Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver you have got all the metro Canadian areas covered and close to half the population to advertise to!
As stated in the article smaller cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton etc won't fit into the MLS or add much so IMHO they should pursue USL-1 teams.
If you draw the line like that you can still fit viable soccer markets like St Louis and Portland (Approximately 2.5 & 2 million people live in those metro areas) in to the MLS and have the USL-1 for all areas around 1 million.
So, you think that the financial success of TFC and the fact that expansion fees have quadrupled since then are unrelated? I think we all get that the attendance at BMO has been an embarrassment to many US based teams, (and hold the flame, I'll admit that it's early days for TFC... lets see whether the support stays strong when they, like the Leafs, are in year 40 of 'championship free play') but I think it's stretching the truth to say that the success of TFC has nothing to do with the expansion demand the league is seeing today... If that's the case, why aren't the new teams paying $10m like MLSE did? Adding a quality ownership group like MLSE (or Fred Wilpon) changes the map, surely you can't argue that?
I couldn't agree more... We are talking about two more teams (at most) from Canada. The rest of the country probably can't support USL-1 even. That's why we don't really get why the US centrics are so upset about the thought of another Canadian team... If there are 4 more quality owners, there will be 4 more teams... if there are 8 more QO's, expect 8 more teams, it just might take more time to get there, that's all. I think the idea that each Canadian addition will 'cost' a US city it's team is just wrong.
While our city populations aren't comparable with the biggest US met's, our nation has more people than NY state and as many as SoCal - two markets the folks in the league office don't seem keen to ignore...
i can't believe your seriously delusional enough to thing that TFC is the reason for success the league has been gaining, and the increasing expansion fees.
first, lets not forget the 11 years of foundation laying the league did prior to TFC ever playing a game, lets then mix in national TV contracts, teams becoming profitable, SSS stadiums popping up, and a player you may have heard of that goes by the name of beckham and the ridiculous amount of attention he brought with him.
sure, the atmosphere at BMO is great, but if TFC never joined the league, i doubt we'd be in any different position then we are right now.
i've pretty much come to the conclusion that TFC joined at the right time, as MLS was gaining critical mass. i think we'll see very similiar situations in seattle and philly. what then?
Trip, I didn't say TFC was THE reason, I said the success of the franchise thus far has contributed to the upswing. Is it the sole reason? No. Did MLSE's success on the balance sheet help prove that franchises weren't just money pits? I think so. Let's not forget the folks at MLSE started talking with the league a couple of years after the contraction... and on the heels of less than stellar expansions to you-know-where.
Yes, Beckham, Blanco, Angel... I'm expecting Valderrama will be coming back any day now... You can say it's "Different" this time, but all the casual fans (who don't even know this forum exists) see it as the same road the NASL went down in the 70's. I'd like to say they are wrong, but I'm not sure they are. Things looked pretty bright when Steve Ross and Jay Emmett were busy hauling plane loads of stars back from Europe... then things went very dark indeed. We'll see in four years if the Beckham experiment does anything but drive up costs. Yes, he has added media buy in, but compare this year's Beckmania to last year's... no comparison. It's off topic, but in many ways, LAG can win financially with Beckham (and probably already have), but the league as a whole can only lose. If he does well, he's an old washed up guy still good enough to dominate here. If he fails, he's just washed up. We've seen that movie before. And by bringing him in, most other major markets have to "get a guy" too.
I hope it works out and the game grows enough to make the doubling of the overall salary hit manageable. I just don't know of a business other than NFL/MLB that has managed to cover such a leap. Time will tell.
Does the MLS really have to stay an "American based league". It stand for Major League Soccer so I don't know why a team with lesser potential from the USA (ex: phoenix) should pass before a canadian team with great potential (Vancouver or Montreal).
Now that Toronto is in you can't say that the MLS is only for the U.S.A.
How can it be anything but an American based league? At the most there would only be three Canadian teams.
Because like in the NHL, an MLS with three Canadian teams would likely have a proportionally higher influence from its Canadian franchises than from many of those in the US.
And appropriately enough, the NHL itself is part of a sport which has a strong international presence, though of course in its case it is the world's most powerful hockey league...
...though bear in mind that pre-expansion, the NHL survived for decades with just six teams, and while it has always relied on Canadian talent to a large extent, its ability to draw European players the way it does nowadays was not always as potent as it is now.
your viewing it through your canadian biased glasses. why would you expect a handful of canadian teams in MLS to be more influential proportionately or not?
more likely, if canada is to have a couple/few teams in MLS, they will be viewed as canadian teams playing in a US based league.
you draw a parallel to NHL, but what about the NFL, and MLB, both of which have canadian teams? the NHL originated in canada and spread south. the NFL, MLB and MLS originated in the US, then took on a small presence in canada.
There's an NFL team based here in Canada? Please explain to us second class citizens where it's located.
DOH! coulda sworn one went over. don't really follow it. can we go ahead and go with buffalo as suggested?
^ Well, to be honest it does look like Buffalo will be moving to Toronto in a few years or so and there has been much talk about it, so that's probably how you got confused.
MLS wants billionaire owners - Canada has two more pretty much willing to join the club - which is why MLS needs Montreal and Vancouver. It ensures the league has stability if the owners can the cover the cash calls (or continued investment in the league) should they decide to do something rash like raise the salary cap (say to afford better quality players) once every team is in a proper soccer-specific stadium.
Add that these owners seem to grasp the business model needed succeed in MLS, along with soccer friendly markets, and I suspect we have expansion franchises once stadium issues are addressed (more in Vancouver - less in Montreal).
Separate names with a comma.