Without a television contract this league is suspect to be sustainable.
Without a television contract this league is suspect to be sustainable.
You might see the USL re-branded around 2020 as MLS-2.
Good point about expansion, OKCretro. How much expansion is too much; sounds fishy to me about expansion fee shared among existing franchises.
Our only group interested in expansion/relocation are the Funks.
Taft Stadium's remodel was great as a h.s. football venue; it fails to meet the minimum USSF-FIFA soccer specifications for USL. Funks are working on a stadium plan.
USL announced in 2015 a multi-year partnership with architecture, engineering & planning firm HOK with an eye toward housing all their clubs in soccer-specific stadiums by the end of the decade.
Oklahoma's two franchises (Energy FC/Roughnecks FC) have until 2020 to get some future financed venue plans developed.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but I believe MLS is a single entity. IE the league owns all the teams and the contracts on all the players, and the team 'owners' just own part of the league. So yeah, expansion fees to get in just get distributed to the existing owners.
Side note: MLS being a single entity and having 'all the power' is a major gripe of the pro/rel crowd in this country. USL I believe operates in the same way. NASL was a true collection of independently owned teams in a league. Well, that's not working out for them.
Not OKC related but still interesting
https://deadspin.com/anthony-precour...t-t-1828374438
Only MLS is single entity. The USL operates a pure franchise model which is highly centralized and top-down in its execution. But the teams/clubs are still independently owned. Often NASL fans think of the USL and MLS as one in the same, but the two leagues differ greatly and should the USL continue its growth and sustainability I see the USL competing with the MLS. Hopefully the USL realizes that a single entity operation and a closed system actually stunts growth for professional soccer in the US and implements Pro/Rel once USL D3 is up and running.
https://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/953025
This could be interesting.
lol. 'The new brand and logos...are innovative...refuse to let others define us'
Maybe by innovative he meant an exact copy of England.
I'm not a pro/rel activist, but honestly, enough with the crap. Unless you are introducing that aspect of the international game, get out of here with stuff like 'The USL will now be modeled after a tried and respected international structure.' Not really pal.
Oklahoma City recent approval of a $978 million MAPS 4 initiative which includes $37 million for a 10,000-seat multipurpose stadium will solidify that the USL remains in OKC beyond 2020.
As for the future of an Oklahoma City MLS franchise; the franchise fee is now $300 million; that's $50 million less than what our current NBA ownership group paid for the NBA Supersonics in 2006.
Chances of OKC obtaining an MLS franchise have slightly improved with MAPS 4 passage; doubt if the current Energy FC ownership has the financial backing for an expansion franchise. Don't have any idea what might be available thru an existing franchise that might see potential in OKC for relocation.
To bring a 10,000 seat starter stadium up to MLS specs (20,000 seats); the city would need an additional $50 million minimum to accomplish that goal.
So, what order will the stadium be built in relation to other MAPS projects? If they wait til 2026 or do it 2021 could matter.
USL said have a plan in place by 2020; not only will we have a plan, we now have the finance mechanism. Energy FC ownership should survive til then. Doubt if USL will put any more pressure on OKC to build a stadium.
MAPS penny sales tax generates $10 million a year; you'll probably see ground broken in September 2020 ($50 million collections) before the 1st MAPS 4 project(s) are constructed.
Stadium & coliseum construction (projects 1-4) infrastructure probably won't start until September 2020. That's why city owned State Fair Park (440 aces) looks more plausible site to build the coliseum & stadium simultaneously.
Let's not do that convention center thing where we make it first on the list but it's nearly the last thing actually getting done.
Hopefully 2026. A lot of other projects that are far more important.
Just dropping a note here to predict that when the final plans for the soccer stadium are released, people are going to be up in arms because it's going to be far smaller and less impressive than they expected. There will be debates over the "original renderings" and people angry the taxpayers are paying for something that "doesn't even get us in contention for MSL." Perhaps there will be a reference to a really nice high school soccer stadium in Texas.
Correct. 37 mil. is not going to build anything that would even get a second look by the mls. It might build them a lobby. But it should be plenty enough for minor league soccer but it won't be anytyhing special at all. 37 mil just doesn't go far with todays stadiums. The Funks should be very happy they are getting a stadium. Maybe they would want to put in another 50 mil and build a decent minor league stadium.
I was reading an article on the new mls soccer stadium in St. Louis and it's over 400 mil. now
I would love for the Energy FC ownership group to throw in $50+ million to atleast make the thing look nice. Most importantly, the shade structures. They could even purchase the naming rights with there investment and call it Funk Stadium or something. I desperately want those shade structures included, and sadly the final plan went cheap.
Since so many on here were against any money for a multi-use stadium, why are so many upset that now it isn't going to be big and fancy?
By the way, Chesapeake Arena started as a bare bones facility, and look at it now. Just because it starts basic doesn't mean it has to end up basic. If there becomes interest by major league soccer, then we can arm wrestle the owner for more funds. No use to do it right now.
it would be awesome if the Energy did a match or something... 72 is still probably not ideal but could be better... might also have the side effect of folks feeling better about the 37M to begin with.
From what I remember, there was a pretty good contingent of us that were for the stadium, but we wanted it to have more money being put into it. $37 mil is a joke. They should have bumped it up to something more like $150 mil. It clearly would have passed.
Go back and read some of mine, and other comments. Many weren't against this stadium, they just wanted it to be bigger and better right out of construction, rather than a certain size with the "promise" that it could be expanded and added onto. I've said from the onset of this, just make it similar to the college football stadium that Baylor built a few years ago, maybe a little scaled back, and you'd have an incredible facility.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks