The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-01-2013 11:48 AM)LairDweller Wrote:  Have you been to any of the newer MLS stadiums? Having been to KC and having tickets @ Columbus next month, I just can't imagine they'd be interested in a football/soccer complex. These newer stadiums are phenomenal complexes with a dedicated purpose of hosting soccer

Yep. Also, the soccer specific stadiums aren't necessarily designed for the expansion you'd want in a football stadium. If somebody made the investment in a soccer specific stadium, I highly doubt that person/group would be interested in renting the place out for football.

Looking it up, Average attendance for MLS games this year are in between 15 and 20 thousand. (excluding Seattle which for some reason has over 40 thousand)

That would be like a close version of what we have for Regions Field with additional seating minus the stuff on the field that isn't grass.

(08-01-2013 01:12 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  For the Olympics, B'ham replaced the artificial turf field (I believe it was taken out and put down at Lawson Field) with one of "prescription (grass) turf" but when no interest was shown by anyone important for a league soccer team, they changed back to artificial turf as it is today.

Does MLS still require real grass fields as the Olympics did in 1996?

Prescription Turf is the brand name of a "moisture management" (i.e., drainage) system for live grass athletic surfaces. The artificial turf of today is a version of FieldTurf. MLS has never required "real grass", although they do ensure that is what's used in any new soccer-specific stadium. They play on FieldTurf at multiple places. It's FIFA that requires all matches be played on natural surfaces...although even Legion Field's original turf would probably be safer than some of the natural pitches the US has had to play on in CONCACAF. FIFA does not regulate MLS surfaces, or those of any other domestic league, so it's only an issue regarding international matches.

(08-01-2013 01:22 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Looking it up, Average attendance for MLS games this year are in between 15 and 20 thousand. (excluding Seattle which for some reason has over 40 thousand)

That would be like a close version of what we have for Regions Field with additional seating minus the stuff on the field that isn't grass.

As mentioned above, the new soccer-specific stadia that are being built in MLS are precisely soccer-specific. They are designed to put the crowd right on top of the action on the pitch and have no considerations for sightlines, facilities, amenities, etc. for American football. I can't think of any of the newest SSS that have hosted a football game.

Seattle, Portland, and (to a lesser extent) Vancouver are insane hotbeds for soccer that actually yearned for MLS teams. They've stepped up to the plate, too, as I've seen Portland and Seattle game day atmospheres compared to those in the UK and Western Europe by players and publications. It's apples and oranges in many ways, of course, because you have generational fans of clubs spanning 80+ years over there, but the dedication, noise, and "event atmosphere" for fixtures out there is damn impressive and has caused other cities to up their game (Kansas City being the most obvious example).

Seattle plays at the Seahawks' field and actually limits the number of tickets available. Some game they would go over 40K if the sweats were open.

Does MLS have a collective profit sharing deal or a cap on salaries?

I could see Seattle having a big advantage over some of the other teams with that attendance.

Pardon my ignorance on it. I don't keep up with MLS.

(08-01-2013 12:42 PM)blazr Wrote:  It has nothing to do with Birmingham as a market, the presence of a "minor league" soccer team, or whether we would build a soccer-specific venue or not. Sporting KC (the Kansas City team) was struggling until it was turned around by...a new ownership group! MLS is looking at solid, committed, and willing to stay under the radar (i.e., no Trumps or Cubans) ownership groups as criteria #1, #2, and #3. I think a franchise in Miami would struggle, but it looks like 2 of Orlando, Miami, and Atlanta will be chosen. One of the other 2 will almost certainly be in the Midwest.

You're right. The market didn't matter for any team currently in MLS, and cities like Orlando, Miami, and Atlanta certainly aren't large markets. What an outrageous thought to think that market matters in a major league sport.

Minor league teams are present in Orlando and Atlanta. Minor league teams are all over this expansion possibilities list.(FYI, no Birmingham mention:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/aug/01/mls-expansion-four-teams-2020-24) But yes, the minor league teams mean nothing as well.

And yes, soccer specific stadiums matter. http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2012/...ls-growth/
There are some reasons why.

But you are right, only the owner matters.

(08-01-2013 01:44 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Does MLS have a collective profit sharing deal or a cap on salaries?

I could see Seattle having a big advantage over some of the other teams with that attendance.

Pardon my ignorance on it. I don't keep up with MLS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#...gue_Soccer

Here are some major points of the MLS rules and regulations for the 2013 season.
A team's roster can be made up of up to 30 players. They are eligible to be selected to the 18-player team for each game.
The salary cap will be $2.95 million per team, not counting the extra salary of designated players. Players in the first 20 roster spots will count against the cap.
The maximum salary for any one player is $368,750.
A designated player counts $368,750 against a team's cap. However, if a player joins his team in the middle of the season, the charge against the budget will be $175,000.
Players who are in the roster spots from 21-30 will not count against a team's cap. They will be known as off-budget players. Generation adidas players are off-budget players and not counted against the cap. Those in roster spots from 21–24 have a minimum salary of $46,500, and slots 25–30 have a minimum salary of $35,125. Additionally, those who earn the lowest possible league salary must be 24 or younger during the 2013 calendar year.
Since the 2012 season, the cap number for international designated players has depended on the players' ages. In the current 2013 season, players 20 or younger count $150,000 against the cap and those age 21 to 23 count $200,000, with older players remaining at a cap number of $368,750. For the purpose of determining a cap number, the player's age is determined solely by his year of birth.[14]

No wonder American players go overseas to play.

(08-01-2013 02:00 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  No wonder American players go overseas to play.

Not only overseas... The Mexican league pays 3-5x better than MLS, so several of our better players play there.

As for an owner... it basically has to be a billionaire or close to it. The last two teams had to pay $50M just for the right to be part of the ownership group. They also had to secure a soccer specific stadium($150M) and have cash to cover operating costs for 3 years($20M.)

So thats $220 Million just to say "Hi I would like to locate an MLS franchise in X city please" But then you have to prove to MLS that the franchise will be well supported and profitable. Birmingham simply doesnt fit that economic profile even if a Billionaire owner dropped out of the sky and decided to locate a team here.

The Birmingham Hammers group are trying get a third division team in Birmingham and have been unable to do that. I think it's safe to forget about having an MLS team in Birmingham and move on to something more realistic... Like the Olympics

Yeah, it's pathetic if Birmingham can't get a semi-pro team together while Huntsville and Chattanooga can each support one.

Those salary cap numbers are misleading. There are several players (still very few compared to other leagues) in MLS making 7 figures a year

(08-01-2013 03:17 PM)LairDweller Wrote:  Those salary cap numbers are misleading. There are several players (still very few compared to other leagues) in MLS making 7 figures a year

It states that it doesn't include the designated player's additional salary. Last time I checked, each team could have up to 3 of these players, and while they could be paid millions each, they'd only count roughly $1.1 million against the cap.

(08-01-2013 03:26 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(08-01-2013 03:17 PM)LairDweller Wrote:  Those salary cap numbers are misleading. There are several players (still very few compared to other leagues) in MLS making 7 figures a year

It states that it doesn't include the designated player's additional salary. Last time I checked, each team could have up to 3 of these players, and while they could be paid millions each, they'd only count roughly $1.1 million against the cap.

Most teams have 2-4 guys making 35k a year and another 2-4 guys making 46k per year. Then you will have your core guys making 100k or so, and your stars making maybe double that before you get to the DP guys who can make whatever... A lot of the DP guys still dont make anywhere near a million though.

You can see what ever single player is currently making at the MLS union site here:
http://www.mlsplayers.org/files/May%201,...20Club.pdf

(08-01-2013 02:30 PM)BlazerMatt Wrote:  

(08-01-2013 02:00 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  No wonder American players go overseas to play.

The Birmingham Hammers group are trying get a third division team in Birmingham and have been unable to do that. I think it's safe to forget about having an MLS team in Birmingham and move on to something more realistic... Like the Olympics

Failed? The group has only been around for a few months and they've said they want a MLS team, but realize that a NASL or USL team is more viable to start off with.

THere is no way we get one of the four teams. There are too many other cities that are far along in the process to getting one. Many have the advantage of an established 2nd tier team or a guy named Beckham that likes Miami. Maybe further down the line if MLS creates a relationship with NASL or USL to have relegation.

(08-01-2013 10:29 PM)uab278 Wrote:  THere is no way we get one of the four teams. There are too many other cities that are far along in the process to getting one. Many have the advantage of an established 2nd tier team or a guy named Beckham that likes Miami. Maybe further down the line if MLS creates a relationship with NASL or USL to have relegation.

There will never be relegation/promotion in major professional soccer in America. The reason it works in Europe is the clubs have generational loyalties. Even if they go down to the lowest rung there will still be customers buying tickets and merchandise. No ownership group in America is going to risk their MLS-level investment becoming a USL team.

Aug. 20, West Campus field is a good place to start supporting Soccer in Birmingham.