This thread will probably be low beneath the radar, probably not even be noticed since it is in this particular subforum but here goes anyway. Maybe the administrators will more it to an offtopic subforum with higher prominence..

Considering the current economic crisis should Marcos & Holt reconsider hiking up (reportedly almost doubling) the USL expansion franchise fees???

With the already increased operating expenditures that a prospective franchise would be facing, is tacking on another $300k or $350k a way to screen out franchises that would be econmically challenged and possibly doomed to failure anyway?

Or would it make investing in and keeping the professional divisions of the league sustainable, especially if Montreal and/or the last two remaing Cascadian (Vancouver and Portland) franshises move up to MLS???

[FYI: Polling is Disabled in this subforum]

I can't quite wrap my head around the fact they felt they should raise the franchise fees so significantly in the first place!

Instead of raising the franchise fee, they could raise the Letter-of-Credit that is required of each team (but not doubling it). I think this would be a much nore palatable way of ensuring that you attract ownership groups that can finance a team for more than just a few seasons. - If they work hard and stick to their business plans, the USL front office won't have to dip into the LOC (like years past) to help a team finish the season, so the owners won't lose that money.

...and how ("pray tell") does the USL front office justify such significant raises for a USL franchise? What exactly do the teams get for their money?

- USL 1st Division teams still have to PAY to get TV coverage. That's why you see some teams (Montreal) more than others - last I heard, teams still had to fork out over 5k each to be on a broadcast.
- What national sponsors has the USL front office provided that help subsidize the league operating expenses and give a percentage to each USL club?

Even befor the latest financial situation "hit the fan", I thought it was a major mistake to raise the new franchise fees so drastically....but I don't see them going back on what was previously stated without losing face.

First, let me say that I agree pretty much 100% with Stone Cold.

I'm guessing (hoping) they felt they had to do so in order to run their business like they feel it should be and hopefully it will be beneficial to the teams too. Time will tell if they made the right choice or not. I'm guessing no here, but really who knows for sure.

That said,right now I'm not worried if they lower it or not because personally I don't think its the right time for them to be concentrating on expansion. They need to do all they can to help the teams that currently exist get through this economic nightmare

Bingo! Stone Cold delivers the goods.

How can they justify raising the fees?

Do they have any league wide marketing deals that help the teams?

It all goes back to supply/demand. MLS has raised their franchise fee to $40M. I've read in the St. Louis paper that if they don't get an MLS expansion franchise, they are going the USL route.

You have Tampa and Austin entering the league. I've read that Pachuca is looking at a team in Arizona for a USL club because it is more financially viable than going the MLS route. So, it appears that there is an increase in demand (and, that is just what we are seeing publicly).

As interest in US soccer franchises have increased, USL is becoming a more viable alternative than MLS. Kind of a trickle down effect.

With 5 of the 7 MLS applicants for expansion being current USL 1 cities, it would seem that being able to demonstrate that the city will support soccer to some degree might be important. That doesn't bode well for St. Louis or Ottawa (or really Miami for that matter). I think every city interested in going to MLS should get started with a USL team first. I think we will see a big difference between Seattle and Philadelphia because of the experience and devotion to the Sounders. Maybe I will be wrong (it has happened plenty of times before). I wonder what happened to all the other wannabe MLS cities - they should go USL 1 (or at least USL 2) first.

I can't say that I agree with you - Toronto had little to no support for the then USL 1st Division Lynx, but look at the sold-out venue they have had for the past two seasons for their MLS team! Perception is reality, and in their case, the area's football fans saw Toronto FC at another level, so they came out to support them.

Another example would be in Seattle. The Sounders have been a very competitive USL 1st Division team for years, with alot of talent moving on to the MLS...but what kind of attaendance or support have they seen from the local market? Now that they have their MLS team starting next year, the franchise has already announced they have sold 16,000 season tickets for a team that doesn't even have a coach or single player yet! (Philly may not make as big an opening as Seattle, but they were the biggest TV market not yet in MLS, so they (ESPN) were VERY keen on getting in that market.)

I think that St. Louis has a very good chance, despite not having a pro team in a very long time. They have supposedly gotten significantly more financial support for their ownership group, already have a plan and government backing for a SSS facility and extended grounds around the stadium, and a long history of soccer in the region (who have already been banding together to support such an MLS franchise bid).

As for starting in the USL first, they are two entirely different, un-related business plans. The MLS and USL used to have an agreement covering player movement between the two leagues, but that expired some years ago and the two sides could not come to a new agreement. Other than that, they are two competing entities, and I don't see the USL being very pleased as being seen/used as a breeding ground for MLS franchises without some kind of significant renumeration!

Of the announced MLS bids, I think that St. Louis has as good or even better chance than Ottawa, Miami, or even Portland.

I think that the MLS decision will look more at the financial viability of the ownership groups, TV/media markets involved, the status or plans towards an independent SSS facility, and the size/support of the soccer community of the proposed market. Another factor may be if there are any regional/national/international companies based within said market that might be interested in becoming a corporate sponsor.

If I had to guess I see it as;

Inside Chance:

Atlanta
- MLS has said they want to get a team back in the Southeast region of the country
- MLS want to expand their ownership groups (tie to NFL)
- One of the largest TV/Media markets to yet represented in the MLS
(Note - no facility plan as of yet!)

Montreal
- SSS facility already in place (needs investment to upgrade and expand)
- Ownership group with funds and connections to NHL and EPL
- proven history of support for the game
- immediate rivalry with Toronto FC (closer than Vancouver)

St. Louis
- for all the reasons above

Vancouver
- Strong ownership support ($)
- immediate access to larger facility (short term) with possibility of SSS facility in the near future given political clout of ownership group
- history of support for high level soccer in the past

Outside Looking In:

Miami
- no facility & going in to FIU means dealing with Univirsity conflicts and limitations
- split ownership group, where MLS will have to deal with a board (Barcelona)
- general lack of support for sports in the region in the past; soccer fans of the area (as many as there are?) have alot of other options

Ottawa
- relatively small TV/Media Market
- competition from other Canadian proposals
- lack of previous history/support of soccer

Portland
- Too much needs to be done (and cost) for facility to be transormed to SSS AND have baseball team move into new facility
(depending on their on-going efforts, I could see them come in on the next round)

I think that groups considering the MLS would not generally consider the USL, and vice vera, because they are just on VERY different financial scales with very different business plans.

Stone Cold you are spot on with your comments. Great post.

MLS has got to be licking their chops at getting a team in the Southeast. Like you said, having someone like Blank on board is huge for Atlanta. Although Portland, Vancouver, and Montreal are definitely more deserving markets with a strong soccer history, Atlanta has got to be at the top of the heap. We'll probably see an Atlanta MLS team copy the Salt Lake model -- play at the Georgia Dome or Georgia Tech for several seasons until they build a SSS.

Its likely we'll see MLS in most of the markets that submitted bids -- its just a matter of when? in what order?

I've been trying to follow the saga of USL over the last 2 months or so and the lack of transparency from Holt and Marcus is frustrating to say the least. By the two not talking, they are not stopping rumors but allowing rumors and mistruths or half-truths to be spread.

I am curious about this statement to open the thread.

"Considering the current economic crisis should Marcos & Holt reconsider hiking up (reportedly almost doubling) the USL expansion franchise fees???"

Do we have a link to verify this info or is it more speculation? How do we know they are trying to up the cost of a franchise?

As well, does anyone really know what a USL-1 franchise cost?

Also, where does this "$300k or $350k" additional charge numbers come from?

There is so much conjuncture out there that I'm trying to sift through the fact from the fiction.

I can tell you that I do know for a fact that a USL PDL team costs $75,000.00. That's a lot of money for a PDL, in my opinion.

It seems that MLS if following NFL's example.With the number of Teams in MLS at this time and the Markets looking to add one seems that we are gona have a League as big as NFL.

How many Teams do you think MLS wants to have? Should we be expecting the worlds largest League?