The MLS has the same structure as Baseball and Grid Iron ie conferences and I thought only 15 teams.
That means that there is more riding on each game as teams have a chance of winning a conference and so going in the play-offs.
The more I read about it the more I like it. Sod Charlton. Go Go London Ravens.
Being serious for a second the real issue is that a London franchise could work but to compete it would need a lot more money than is available to MLS teams or would be sustainable. Most MLS players earn a lot less than Prem players and the league loses money.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The MLS has the same structure as Baseball and Grid Iron ie conferences and I thought only 15 teams.
That means that there is more riding on each game as teams have a chance of winning a conference and so going in the play-offs.
The more I read about it the more I like it. Sod Charlton. Go Go London Ravens.
Being serious for a second the real issue is that a London franchise could work but to compete it would need a lot more money than is available to MLS teams or would be sustainable. Most MLS players earn a lot less than Prem players and the league loses money.
From next season, all MLS teams are predicted to be in profit. Not many professional football leagues can claim that. I really think a London franchise would work. And might even work on a "wandering" basis, ie playing a couple of games in London, Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle, Cardiff, Dublin, Paris..?
MLS is based in two countries now (US and Canada), with 16 teams. This is going to grow to 18 in 2011(Vancouver and Portland being added) and 20 (two additional teams to be determined) in 2012. I think the MLS would bend over backwards to get a team based in a proper football country, either in South America or Europe (or both).
In my mind these fragmented leagues have happened historically in the US. They now have the MLS, NASL and the USL. Not the way it should be going in my view.
As for a MLS franchise in London - never going to happen. Yes Canada are in, and Bermuda and Puerto Rico play in the USL but Becks franchise will be elsewhere like in Vegas.
[cite]Posted By: InspectorSands[/cite]They can sod right off. I couldn't sleep last night and watched a bit of LA Galaxy v Real Salt Lake and it was dreadful. Beckham looked one tenth of the player he used to be. Still, it helped knock the insomnia on the head.
Funny that their Cup Final was dreadful, I mean when you compare it to the unbelievable, end-to-end, amazing feast of football we get with our FA Cup final every season it just doesn't hold up.
One thing about the MLS is you never really know who is going to win the thing, much unlike the absolute borefest that is the race for the Premier League title. I haven't bothered watching a single Premier League game this season...............
Very interesting! I suppose the new NASL is a self-selecting group of teams who consider they won't win a USL franchise (at least any time soon). I suppose this plays out across a larger stage, ie which of the rival leagues retains - or is granted - affiliation to FIFA. In a real sense, this move might even make it more likely that a 19th and 20th MSL franchise is moved abroad. (And, in answer to my own question, I would think the USL will retain it; NASL represents more than one country - ie USA and Canada).
Part of my reasoning that there will be a "foreign" city included is that the MSL can't compete WITH the biggest leagues in the football heartland (western Europe and South America). But, with strategically-located MSL franchise, they can compete IN those locations.
I suppose the logical extension of foreign-based franchises might be a European conference, ie ten European teams competing in the MSL Europe conference, for a place in the "world" MSL finals, with the Western Conference, Eastern Conference and a South American conference. Now THAT would be an interesting cat/pigeon scenario!
An awful idea, there have been suggestions that a NFL franchise could be set up here, but that offers something different from other sport here. The problem with a MLS franchise in London is that unless the quality of players and game is that much higher than premiership level then it won't catch on. I can see Chelsea fans supporting a MLS Chelsea team for example, but not to the extent that they'll turn up to watch matches but not football fans from across the teams in London coming together to support a MLS London franchise that played somewhere neutral like Wembley or the Olympic stadium.
In my mind these fragmented leagues have happened historically in the US. They now have the MLS, NASL and the USL. Not the way it should be going in my view.
As for a MLS franchise in London - never going to happen. Yes Canada are in, and Bermuda and Puerto Rico play in the USL but Becks franchise will be elsewhere like in Vegas.
The only reason the NASL has been "reformed" is because the USL was so badly run. I think it's strange to use the same name as it kind of devalues the original league that was very successful in the late 70's and early 80's. Plus Crystal Palace Baltimore are in it which means I can mug them off when they come to play in Vancouver.
To be honest the new "NASL" and USl are just springboards for teams to the MLS (Seattle, Vancouver, Portland etc etc) and can be used as second "reserve" teams for the MLS teams e.g. Vancouver post 2011. They'll never be promotion or relegation because of money. North Americans are on the whole happy with franchises in their sport and whilst I would never want to see the same happen in the UK the structure does create a more level playing field for the teams and as Oakster mentions.
Comments
That means that there is more riding on each game as teams have a chance of winning a conference and so going in the play-offs.
The more I read about it the more I like it. Sod Charlton. Go Go London Ravens.
Being serious for a second the real issue is that a London franchise could work but to compete it would need a lot more money than is available to MLS teams or would be sustainable. Most MLS players earn a lot less than Prem players and the league loses money.
MLS is based in two countries now (US and Canada), with 16 teams. This is going to grow to 18 in 2011(Vancouver and Portland being added) and 20 (two additional teams to be determined) in 2012. I think the MLS would bend over backwards to get a team based in a proper football country, either in South America or Europe (or both).
http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSTRE5AM4P820091123
In my mind these fragmented leagues have happened historically in the US. They now have the MLS, NASL and the USL. Not the way it should be going in my view.
As for a MLS franchise in London - never going to happen. Yes Canada are in, and Bermuda and Puerto Rico play in the USL but Becks franchise will be elsewhere like in Vegas.
Funny that their Cup Final was dreadful, I mean when you compare it to the unbelievable, end-to-end, amazing feast of football we get with our FA Cup final every season it just doesn't hold up.
One thing about the MLS is you never really know who is going to win the thing, much unlike the absolute borefest that is the race for the Premier League title. I haven't bothered watching a single Premier League game this season...............
Part of my reasoning that there will be a "foreign" city included is that the MSL can't compete WITH the biggest leagues in the football heartland (western Europe and South America). But, with strategically-located MSL franchise, they can compete IN those locations.
I suppose the logical extension of foreign-based franchises might be a European conference, ie ten European teams competing in the MSL Europe conference, for a place in the "world" MSL finals, with the Western Conference, Eastern Conference and a South American conference. Now THAT would be an interesting cat/pigeon scenario!
The only reason the NASL has been "reformed" is because the USL was so badly run. I think it's strange to use the same name as it kind of devalues the original league that was very successful in the late 70's and early 80's. Plus Crystal Palace Baltimore are in it which means I can mug them off when they come to play in Vancouver.
To be honest the new "NASL" and USl are just springboards for teams to the MLS (Seattle, Vancouver, Portland etc etc) and can be used as second "reserve" teams for the MLS teams e.g. Vancouver post 2011. They'll never be promotion or relegation because of money. North Americans are on the whole happy with franchises in their sport and whilst I would never want to see the same happen in the UK the structure does create a more level playing field for the teams and as Oakster mentions.