14 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

As someone who's followed soccer in this country very closely for a long time, I think this is a dangerous approach. 

 

Anytime a new pro soccer team is announced in this country, there are always reports of massive season ticket pledges before anything has even gone on sale. But it can be very difficult to translate all of those pledges into actual tickets, and it can be even more difficult to maintain that level for multiple years. Years 1-3 are almost always impressive from an attendance standpoint. But the newness can wear off quickly and the drop-off can be quite large. 

 

I think the far better approach is to build a high quality 10-12k seat stadium that can be expanded by 5-7k in the future if needed. The atmosphere in person and on TV is always far better when the stadium is packed, even if it's only 10-12k seats, compared to 10-12k people dispersed throughout a 20k seat stadium. If you can get over the "newness" hump and are continuing to pack the 10-12k seat stadium past the ~5 year mark, then it's probably time to consider an expansion. 

 

 

Also think the FC Cincinnati approach of waiting a few years and renting out another stadium for games to prove out the model worked out really well and that team’s owners have infinite money. Building a stadium right away feels pretty risky

Edited April 3, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

9 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Also think the FC Cincinnati approach of waiting a few years and renting out another stadium for games to prove out the model worked out really well and that team’s owners have infinite money. Building a stadium right away feels pretty risky

 

It definitely seems risky, but here's the thing:

 

https://www.clevescene.com/news/debut-of-clevelands-mls-next-pro-team-may-be-delayed-until-soccer-stadium-built-43677907

 

With all hands on deck focusing on the financing, what does that mean for the arrival of Cleveland's MLS NEXT Pro team?
Murphy told Scene there's a good chance the team's debut is delayed from 2025 until a stadium is built, which could take up to two years from when ground is broken.
"Ideally, we want to debut in a stadium and give the best first impression we can," he said. "A delay might be the right move with MLS."
MLS NEXT Pro President Charles Altcheck in November 2022 told Scene the league wouldn't have awarded Cleveland a team without a concrete commitment to build a new facility.
"We know how important it is for a team to have a venue that's built for soccer and built for the fans and players to be able to show the best of the sport week in and week out," he said at the time.

 

 

31 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

As someone who's followed soccer in this country very closely for a long time, I think this is a dangerous approach. 

 

I agree - I didn't advocate for a 20k stadium.

If we start out with 12,000 pledges and build a 12,000k stadium, where would non-season ticket holders sit? As the pledges surely dwindle after the newness factor, people who aren't season ticket holders will fill the space as people discover the team. Hence, we need a 12k stadium, which I was simply noting is larger than the KC stadium capacity.

Edited April 3, 20241 yr by Geowizical

2 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

MLS NEXT Pro President Charles Altcheck in November 2022 told Scene the league wouldn't have awarded Cleveland a team without a concrete commitment to build a new facility.

That’s a crazy condition for a b-team league, the MLS doesn't even follow that they’re happy with a existing stadium that can convert to a pitch

1 hour ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Also think the FC Cincinnati approach of waiting a few years and renting out another stadium for games to prove out the model worked out really well and that team’s owners have infinite money. Building a stadium right away feels pretty risky

 

I think they may see it as a race. Soccer facilities in Cleveland seem like a relatively good investment and whoever gets a stadium off the ground is of course going to carry risk, but also give them a strategically advantageous position.  

Cincinnati had designs on MLS from Day 1.  (Cincy does not have a NBA team, so a 3rd "big league" team is an easier sell.)   They also had a more reasonable temp stadium in UC's Stadium... Browns Stadium would probably be way too big and expensive, and everything else in the region is too small or barebones.

 

NWSL is the real prize here and any posturing from MLS Next execs is laughable... it's essentially the Cape Cod League but with smaller/zero crowds. 

 

 

If Browns move to Brookpark, could a soccer stadium go on the lakefront?

17 minutes ago, scg80 said:

If Browns move to Brookpark, could a soccer stadium go on the lakefront?

 

They've already identified a location for the soccer stadium just south of the Innerbelt Bridge. 

 

If we get the opportunity to move the Browns Stadium off the lakefront we shouldn't squander that by replacing it with another stadium

Picked the spot already aside, to his point a soccer stadium would be perfect for the lakefront it’s perfect medium sized venue with a good indoor out door feel and is able to make cut outs towards views like downtown and the lake 

 

the more I think about it the more I’d love to see this in the flats although not sure if there’s room 

Edited April 3, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

51 minutes ago, ML11 said:

Cincinnati had designs on MLS from Day 1.  (Cincy does not have a NBA team, so a 3rd "big league" team is an easier sell.)   They also had a more reasonable temp stadium in UC's Stadium... Browns Stadium would probably be way too big and expensive, and everything else in the region is too small or barebones.

 

NWSL is the real prize here and any posturing from MLS Next execs is laughable... it's essentially the Cape Cod League but with smaller/zero crowds. 

 

 

Also a good and relevant call back for us right now if you remember the spots they thought about putting the stadium 1) riverfront in Kentucky 2) the developing Oakley neighborhood near 71 3) the eventual home in the West End neighboring the hottest district in the city OTR. 
 
Although all three options are better than what we face with brook park 

 

Potential rivalry on the horizon?

 

USL W League welcomes Pittsburgh as expansion team for 2025

 

TAMPA, Fla. - The United Soccer League today announced that the Pittsburgh Riverhounds ownership group has established a USL W League team which is slated to start competing in the 2025 season. The team’s official crest and identity will be unveiled in the coming months.  

 

The addition of a W League team will provide a pathway for women in Pittsburgh to compete at an elite level. The Riverhounds Development Academy has been active since 2007, with its first girls’ academy team forming in 2012. 

 

“As we experience the remarkable growth of women’s soccer globally, it’s imperative that we not only acknowledge, but actively champion the immense talent and passion that exists within our own communities,” said Jeff Garner, Pittsburgh Riverhounds President. “By establishing a pathway for girls in our region to pursue the highest levels of soccer, particularly those emerging from our esteemed Riverhounds Development Academy, we are not just creating opportunities, we are fulfilling dreams.” 

 

The year the Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC is celebrating its 25th anniversary, after being established in 1999 as a men’s professional team in the then USL A League. Following the formation of the Development Academy, the club expanded, now fielding teams from U-9 to U-19 age groups within multiple leagues, including USL Academy. 

 

https://www.uslwleague.com/news_article/show/1308277

On 7/25/2018 at 10:32 PM, cbussoccer said:

Second, the state of Ohio will already be saturated with MLS teams. FCC is joining next year and things are starting to look promising for the Crew to be saved.

 

The more recent posts in this thread caused me to go back and look at where we started.  (One of the reasons I like the classic BB format is the time-capsule effect of long-running threads.)

 

This post has aged very well indeed.

31 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

The more recent posts in this thread caused me to go back and look at where we started.  (One of the reasons I like the classic BB format is the time-capsule effect of long-running threads.)

 

This post has aged very well indeed.

 

And I'm very thankful with how well it's aged. Six years later, I can't believe how well run and supported both the Crew and FCC are. I would absolutely love to see an MLS team in Cleveland, but just as I said in that post from six years ago I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

MLS would need to expand to around 40+ teams for Cleveland to have a chance. There have been rumblings of MLS essentially buying USL and creating a promotion/relegation system, which would be quite interesting. Cleveland's best course of action would probably be to join USL, ideally the USL Championship (they have three different levels), and hope that the leagues get consolidated and pro/rel gets implemented. In any event, it will likely (and unfortunately) be an extremely long wait until Cleveland has a top-level professional men's soccer team. I hope I'm wrong though.

I really hope we adopt what the majority of the world does with promotion and relegation, but just can’t see it happening due to money.

I'm skeptical MLS would ever seriously entertain the idea of relegation. Those ownership groups just shell out way too much money to play in a second level.

 

I would also argue the best thing for US soccer would be for USL to remain separate from and compete as much as possible with MLS.   

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

I'm skeptical MLS would ever seriously entertain the idea of relegation. Those ownership groups just shell out way too much money to play in a second level.

 

I would also argue the best thing for US soccer would be for USL to remain separate from and compete as much as possible with MLS.   

 

There's really no way for USL to compete with MLS right now though. MLS controls 9 of the top 10 MSAs, and 24 of the top 35, with plans to expand further. The infrastructure that exists across MLS blows USL out of the water. The wealth of even the top ownership groups in USL is miniscule compared to even the "cheap" MLS ownership groups. 

 

To top it all off, MLS is designated as the top division league by the USSF. This allows MLS teams to more easily buy and sell players to various European leagues, and gives MLS teams the opportunity to play in the CONCACAF Champions Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup. 

 

USL's only prayer is that they can somehow convince the USSF (or convince FIFA to force the USSF) to revoke the designation from MLS and grant it to them. This would greatly diminish the value of MLS and allow USL to convince MLS owners to jump ship and join USL. 

 

Unless that happens, there's really no way for USL to compete with MLS. 

 

The best thing for US soccer would be for MLS and USL to combine forces in some way and create a 3 or 4 division pyramid with pro/rel. 

10 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

There's really no way for USL to compete with MLS right now though. MLS controls 9 of the top 10 MSAs, and 24 of the top 35, with plans to expand further. The infrastructure that exists across MLS blows USL out of the water. The wealth of even the top ownership groups in USL is miniscule compared to even the "cheap" MLS ownership groups. 

 

To top it all off, MLS is designated as the top division league by the USSF. This allows MLS teams to more easily buy and sell players to various European leagues, and gives MLS teams the opportunity to play in the CONCACAF Champions Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup. 

 

USL's only prayer is that they can somehow convince the USSF (or convince FIFA to force the USSF) to revoke the designation from MLS and grant it to them. This would greatly diminish the value of MLS and allow USL to convince MLS owners to jump ship and join USL. 

 

Unless that happens, there's really no way for USL to compete with MLS. 

 

The best thing for US soccer would be for MLS and USL to combine forces in some way and create a 3 or 4 division pyramid with pro/rel. 

 

I really wish US Soccer would push for a tiered/relegation system - but that'll never happen

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

I really wish US Soccer would push for a tiered/relegation system - but that'll never happen

 

While it would offer some fun daydreams of Akron's lowly NPSL team playing its way into MLS someday, I'm still not a fan of pro/rel.  I can't see as much enthusiasm among well-capitalized potential ownership groups going forward to grow the sport if there's a chance that a bad year of on-field product will drop your club into the minors.  Why shell out for a 20,000 seat stadium, another Lower.com field, if you might be playing in front of 400 people in the equivalent of USL-1 two years later?

22 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

While it would offer some fun daydreams of Akron's lowly NPSL team playing its way into MLS someday, I'm still not a fan of pro/rel.  I can't see as much enthusiasm among well-capitalized potential ownership groups going forward to grow the sport if there's a chance that a bad year of on-field product will drop your club into the minors.  Why shell out for a 20,000 seat stadium, another Lower.com field, if you might be playing in front of 400 people in the equivalent of USL-1 two years later?

 

The ownership angle is obviously the hold-up, but I think from a fan perspective, it would be well received. 

 

Any change would need to be planned out years in advance so current owners can sell if they want out. The first relegation slots would probably also need to be determined based on performances over 2-3 years so one bad season doesn't completely sink a team. 

 

I do think, for the first decade or so, the top division would generally be made up of current MLS clubs with a couple USL clubs floating around the bottom of the table. Unless massive infrastructure improvements are undertaken with USL teams prior to this theoretical system, they would really struggle to attract the talent that MLS teams would be able to attract. So, while there is a risk to current owners, it would likely be pretty low. 

 

Regardless, it will be extremely difficult to ever make happen and will definitely require pressure from USSF/FIFA. 

 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

There's really no way for USL to compete with MLS right now though. MLS controls 9 of the top 10 MSAs, and 24 of the top 35, with plans to expand further. The infrastructure that exists across MLS blows USL out of the water. The wealth of even the top ownership groups in USL is miniscule compared to even the "cheap" MLS ownership groups.  

 

MLS will never expand enough though to capture all of the soccer starved cities in America. There is history in plenty of places like Rochester, Cleveland, Sacramento, Tampa, etc. etc. who are left out of the MLS equation. But I wholly agree with you the USL needs to get out of the USSF ranking and go outside the box, so to speak.

 

I want to see USL get some crazy billionaire ownership groups operate in a league without a salary cap. It's not unthinkable that a New York Cosmos or some other eccentric outsider could buy a world class team. 

16 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

While it would offer some fun daydreams of Akron's lowly NPSL team playing its way into MLS someday, I'm still not a fan of pro/rel.  I can't see as much enthusiasm among well-capitalized potential ownership groups going forward to grow the sport if there's a chance that a bad year of on-field product will drop your club into the minors.  Why shell out for a 20,000 seat stadium, another Lower.com field, if you might be playing in front of 400 people in the equivalent of USL-1 two years later?

 

In my opinion, it would never happen the way it does in Europe, where a premier league team could theoretically be a Sunday league team in 5 short years... 

 

However, I think if there was a 2 tier system, with the USL's top league being the "English Championship" of sorts... Even if relegation was limited to only 1-2 sides a year, I think it could work. Moreover, I'd actually argue the inverse... I think if Cleveland has a USL team, attendance will be substantially better if there's a chance that they can be promoted. 

26 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

However, I think if there was a 2 tier system, with the USL's top league being the "English Championship" of sorts... Even if relegation was limited to only 1-2 sides a year, I think it could work. Moreover, I'd actually argue the inverse... I think if Cleveland has a USL team, attendance will be substantially better if there's a chance that they can be promoted. 

 

Oh, absolutely, attendance will be better if there's a chance that can they can get promoted, but even if that happens, they'll still be playing at the St. Ignatius High School fields or wherever because the owners that just got promoted aren't going to shell out for a top tier stadium when there's an equal chance that they could get demoted in a future year.  The functional cap on new stadium constructions, and possibly even on player salaries, are whatever can be supported by a USL team because there's no guarantee that an MLS team will stay an MLS team, and owners need to be prepared for downsides as well as upsides.  And, in particular, unless there is a provision for sharing MLS TV revenue (the Apple TV deal revenue) and other league-level revenue sources with USL clubs, being demoted would be financially catastrophic in big-budget American markets.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Oh, absolutely, attendance will be better if there's a chance that can they can get promoted, but even if that happens, they'll still be playing at the St. Ignatius High School fields or wherever because the owners that just got promoted aren't going to shell out for a top tier stadium when there's an equal chance that they could get demoted in a future year.  The functional cap on new stadium constructions, and possibly even on player salaries, are whatever can be supported by a USL team because there's no guarantee that an MLS team will stay an MLS team, and owners need to be prepared for downsides as well as upsides.  And, in particular, unless there is a provision for sharing MLS TV revenue (the Apple TV deal revenue) and other league-level revenue sources with USL clubs, being demoted would be financially catastrophic in big-budget American markets.

 

I guess my point is - and I get the points you're raising too - but it would easier to fundraise for an additional 5,000 person stand if financial incentives associated with promotion were realized. I mean... Messi's current home stadium currently includes four 1,500 person risers set diagonally on each corner of the field... not every MLS stadium is new or bespoke for soccer.

Cleveland Soccer Group seeking $90 million in public money for proposed downtown stadium

May 16, 2024

JOE SCALZO

 

 

 

Quote

The Cleveland Soccer Group (CSG) has released two things sure to open the eyes of Clevelanders: renderings for its proposed downtown stadium and the price tag for taxpayers.

 

CSG announced it will seek $90 million in public money for a $150 million, 12,500-seat South Gateway stadium located immediately south of Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse and Progressive Field. 

 

The public funding would come through admissions taxes and public revenue bonds, and would include the city, county and state, CSG said.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/cleveland-soccer-group-seeks-90-million-downtown-stadium

Great view 

That second pic is creepy as hell 😂

Only $90M?? Come on they gotta ask for at least $1B 🤣

Thats a pretty insignificant pricetag relative to other facilities.  Can they really build that for $150 Mil?  I know the Cleveland Soccer Group guys, they are good guys...they want this badly, this is their new vocation.  Its not about the money...NWSL and MLS Next teams are money losers year over year.  You have to mature your franchise for 10+ years for it to be about the money.  Plus, they made their money selling their last business.  They want impact to the community and to build something that young women can dream about and the city can be proud of. I would support this.

I cant read the article as i dont have access...is the rest of the funding coming directly from the soccer group?

6 minutes ago, BelievelandD1 said:

I cant read the article as i dont have access...is the rest of the funding coming directly from the soccer group?

 

Yes CSG will provide $60M for the stadium and an additional $133M for a training facility. 

22 minutes ago, surfohio said:

That second pic is creepy as hell 😂

Yes, it is. Looks like a scene from Night of the Living Dead.

22 minutes ago, BelievelandD1 said:

Thats a pretty insignificant pricetag relative to other facilities.  Can they really build that for $150 Mil?  I know the Cleveland Soccer Group guys, they are good guys...they want this badly, this is their new vocation.  Its not about the money...NWSL and MLS Next teams are money losers year over year.  You have to mature your franchise for 10+ years for it to be about the money.  Plus, they made their money selling their last business.  They want impact to the community and to build something that young women can dream about and the city can be proud of. I would support this.

I just quickly looked up the few smaller (USL and NWSL) soccer-specific stadiums that I've heard of that were built in recent years...

 

Louisville cost $65 million breaking ground in 2018

Colorado Springs cost $42 million breaking ground in 2019

Kansas City cost $117 million breaking ground in 2022

 

I didn't dive into what all those costs entailed, but at first blush it seems like $150 million would be realistic.

Where downtown might this go?

From the clevelandprosoccer IG feed

My own meager contribution

 

 

Cleveland soccer stadium backers seek $90M in public funds
By Ken Prendergast / May 16, 2024

 

Backers of a long-proposed soccer stadium in Downtown Cleveland have issued renderings, a video and a request for $90 million in public-sector financing to help support a $150 million, 12,500-seat stadium. The request is being publicized now because backers of the project are submitting a bid for a National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) team next month and a stadium is an essential ingredient of the application.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/16/cleveland-soccer-stadium-backers-seek-90m-in-public-funds/

1 hour ago, KJP said:

My own meager contribution

 

 

Cleveland soccer stadium backers seek $90M in public funds
By Ken Prendergast / May 16, 2024

 

Backers of a long-proposed soccer stadium in Downtown Cleveland have issued renderings, a video and a request for $90 million in public-sector financing to help support a $150 million, 12,500-seat stadium. The request is being publicized now because backers of the project are submitting a bid for a National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) team next month and a stadium is an essential ingredient of the application.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/16/cleveland-soccer-stadium-backers-seek-90m-in-public-funds/

 

Any idea where the training facility might land?

 

 

Stunning imagery, take my money!

44 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

Any idea where the training facility might land?

 

It's in the article 😜

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

It's in the article 😜

 

🤦🏻‍♂️ Don't mind me! Just need to read more closely...

On 11/19/2022 at 11:40 AM, KJP said:

This site concept I drew based on sources was from this article.....

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/06/17/browns-leaning-toward-new-stadium/

 

KJP - If this stadium is still at the same spot as your November 2022 article - then exactly where is the training site?

One thing thats a little fishy to me...if they need the stadium to get the bid and are asking $90 Million for that, but are touting the $133 Million for training facilities, which is not needed for the bid...why not just shift the training facility dollars to secure the money for the stadium and either tone down the training facilities or hold off and raise that money down the line when the bid is secure??

1 hour ago, BelievelandD1 said:

One thing thats a little fishy to me...if they need the stadium to get the bid and are asking $90 Million for that, but are touting the $133 Million for training facilities, which is not needed for the bid...why not just shift the training facility dollars to secure the money for the stadium and either tone down the training facilities or hold off and raise that money down the line when the bid is secure??

I could be wrong and please let me know if i am wrong - but i think i read somewhere that the 133 Million for a training complex includes a NWSL Expansion franchise fee of somewhere around 53 million, so the training complex could be 80 million

11 hours ago, simplythis said:

KJP - If this stadium is still at the same spot as your November 2022 article - then exactly where is the training site?

 

If I'm understanding the rendering and caption, the training site would be between the walkway and E. 9th under the "SOCCER PARKING" label.

11 hours ago, BelievelandD1 said:

One thing thats a little fishy to me...if they need the stadium to get the bid and are asking $90 Million for that, but are touting the $133 Million for training facilities, which is not needed for the bid...why not just shift the training facility dollars to secure the money for the stadium and either tone down the training facilities or hold off and raise that money down the line when the bid is secure??

 

Just guessing that training facilities can be profitable but stadiums aren't? 

CSU's Wolstein Center would be a better spot!

Just read yesterday that owners of Detroit City FC (USL) bought property in SW Detroit for a brand new 15k seat stadium. Let the race begin :-)   

I'm really excited about this.  It's not a bad location necessarily, but it's not an easy site to build on.  There's about 50'-75' of elevation change on that site as it goes down to the Flats, and it's bordered by the highway and railroad tracks.  All of this can be overcome of course, but I find it interesting that many of the exciting future projects in Cleveland will be on difficult sites that require a lot of infrastructure changes.  Lakefront, Riverfront, this site, will all require a major lift just to get development started, meanwhile there are still lots parcels downtown that are vacant or more "shovel ready".  I'm not complaining; if these projects get done, then future projects will just be that much easier to build.  I'm just really surprised this is the case.

 

 

Something else that is really surprising to me is that while NFL and MLB are increasingly going to indoor stadiums (it seems that way anyway) very few professional soccer teams play indoors.  Atlanta is the only one I can think of - in the whole world!  I wonder why that is?  I feel like an indoor facility with 12-15k capacity would get a ton of use.  Not complaining- just curious why this is.

Soccer, like football, is meant to be played in all elements.  The only reason football stadiums are getting domes is to maximize their use and attract more events.  Its a money play...its hard to justify a stadium that is used 10 days a year, especially when you are asking for public money.  Baseball cant be played in all elements.