Cotcher nails it again.

[Sirhornsalot]

 You are leading the internetz.

 

[MikeV73]

I was thinking San marcos or new braunfels

Someplace in between that would draw fans from both. Similar to arlington. Maybe out on Texas 130 where you've got an 80 mph freeway from both places.

Got it, thanks for the reply. I am a stick in the mud who cringes about driving out to the COTA location for anything ( I am in Leander north of Austin/cedar park). PS, get of my lawn. Do understand the Arlington analogy, not sure if it would be as feasible in central Texas or not.

 

[doc longhorn]

Hey now. Just because you don't like soccer, which is fine, doesn't mean you get to belittle those of us that do. Some of us, like myself, do like soccer, and I'm neither a foreigner nor an illegal alien. I'm living in Houston and I go support the Dynamo when I have the time and money for a ticket (which, unfortunately, isn't too often). And if you think it's going to fold, you obviously haven't been paying attention to MLS over the past 10 years. Obviously it's not as big as many other sports, but it's growing in fan support and visibility year after year.

Now would it work in Austin? That's a different story altogether lol I would agree with y'all that MLS has a better chance in SA.

Ha!  I said that tongue-in-cheek.  I know there are a few Texans that like that foreign game.  There are too many soccer moms not to. 

Hell, Rice and UH have large student populations that enjoy other foreign games like Rugby and Cricket as well. 

Just kidding. 

 

[Matt Cotcher]

I'm a little surprised that y'all think MLS isn't a fit in Austin. Sadly enough, this isn't the old, quirky college town anymore...it's still here, but you have to look for it.

Austin fancies itself as being progressive.  I think the mainstream demographic in town would be in favor of an MLS franchise because it sounds good/cool/progressive/European/forward thinking.

Whether or not those people would attend a game isn't the point (from the city's perspective). Those people would support the idea.

 

[doc longhorn]

Got it, thanks for the reply. I am a stick in the mud who cringes about driving out to the COTA location for anything ( I am in Leander north of Austin/cedar park). PS, get of my lawn. Do understand the Arlington analogy, not sure if it would be as feasible in central Texas or not.

Ha!  Long drive from Leander?  Try living in Houston.

But to show my age - when I grew up in Austin, Leander and Round Rock were considered pretty far out of town.  And Georgetown was an all day trip (no, we weren't in the horse and buggy era - but close. ).

I had a relative that was supt. of schools in Leander and the head football coach as well.  He matriculated to Lamar Jr. High in Austin and eventually to principle of AHS.  He even has a school in Austin named after him now.

Leader was where I got my first taste of cabrito - Bar BQ goat.  Best Bar BQ I've ever had - then or since.

 

[The Bry-Man81]

Ha! I said that tongue-in-cheek. I know there are a few Texans that like that foreign game. There are too many soccer moms not to.

Hell, Rice and UH have large student populations that enjoy other foreign games like Rugby and Cricket as well.

Just kidding.

Haha to be honest, I was trying to figure out whether you were kidding....but it didn't seem to me that you were. I figured I'd let my opinion be known and go from there. My apologies Doc!!

 

[Chris Flanagan]

Ok two big things:

1. Austin is likely to get the MLS team. Why? Stadium potential.

While the OP who mentions that the San Antonio Scorpions are a good squad in the NASL, they just built Toyota Field in 2013. MLS requires plans for a soccer specific stadium with at least 18,000 capacity for the most part (Seattle Sounders being one of the exceptions since they draw 45K every game). Toyota Field has a capacity of 8,500. Now, they could expand the West and North(?) sides to accommodate the seats but unless they get funds, it's not happening.

Austin Aztex OTOH play at House park. Bringing a MLS team brings a nicer stadium to downtown Austin which has good concert potential as well. The MLS wants a 3rd team in Texas. The only other competition is El Paso which is making a push but I think (My guess only) the MLS is more enamored with Austin/SA area. 

However, the one big problem is MLS only has 1 spot left to get to 24 with many cities vying for a team. Miami might not get the MLS team if they can't get a downtown stadium but in reality, 1 spot remains.

2. Patterson can try, but will fail at getting taxpayer funding.

Patterson should try to create a joint venture for a downtown stadium but what leverage do they have? "If you don't give us what we want, we'll move UT to Lockhart?" I see no benefit for the City of Austin to foot the bill. UT will have to put down a substantial portion because the people of the Republic of Austin will hate the idea of taxpayer funded stadiums.

 

[streettopeschel]

Chris...google Toyota Field and/or Gordon Hartman. The plan from day 1 was to expand and have a MLS team. 

 

[doc longhorn]

Ok two big things:

1. Austin is likely to get the MLS team. Why? Stadium potential.

While the OP who mentions that the San Antonio Scorpions are a good squad in the NASL, they just built Toyota Field in 2013. MLS requires plans for a soccer specific stadium with at least 18,000 capacity for the most part (Seattle Sounders being one of the exceptions since they draw 45K every game). Toyota Field has a capacity of 8,500. Now, they could expand the West and North(?) sides to accommodate the seats but unless they get funds, it's not happening.

Austin Aztex OTOH play at House park. Bringing a MLS team brings a nicer stadium to downtown Austin which has good concert potential as well. The MLS wants a 3rd team in Texas. The only other competition is El Paso which is making a push but I think (My guess only) the MLS is more enamored with Austin/SA area. 

However, the one big problem is MLS only has 1 spot left to get to 24 with many cities vying for a team. Miami might not get the MLS team if they can't get a downtown stadium but in reality, 1 spot remains.

2. Patterson can try, but will fail at getting taxpayer funding.

Patterson should try to create a joint venture for a downtown stadium but what leverage do they have? "If you don't give us what we want, we'll move UT to Lockhart?" I see no benefit for the City of Austin to foot the bill. UT will have to put down a substantial portion because the people of the Republic of Austin will hate the idea of taxpayer funded stadiums.

The leverage is shared revenues.  Concerts, head liners, political venues, trade shows, etc.  These things generate revenues for the city.  If Austin wants a piece of the action, Austin must put its feet into the fire.

Besides, Austin is one of the most liberal cities in the country.  Surely, liberal Democrats can build something, for once, with their own money?

 

[utisdabomb12]

I'm a little surprised that y'all think MLS isn't a fit in Austin. Sadly enough, this isn't the old, quirky college town anymore...it's still here, but you have to look for it.

Austin fancies itself as being progressive.  I think the mainstream demographic in town would be in favor of an MLS franchise because it sounds good/cool/progressive/European/forward thinking.

Whether or not those people would attend a game isn't the point (from the city's perspective). Those people would support the idea.

Austin is a good place for a MLS team. Soccer is actually pretty big in the Austin, Round Rock, Georgetown, Pflugerville, and San Antonio areas. I would bet MLS games would actually get a pretty good draw. Some of the lower professional teams like the Austin Aztex get good numbers in comparison with other cities. 

 

[Chris Flanagan]

Chris...google Toyota Field and/or Gordon Hartman. The plan from day 1 was to expand and have a MLS team. 

I did not see that before. That is a nice rendering and would definitely help SA's bid for an MLS team. 

 

[Chris Flanagan]

The leverage is shared revenues.  Concerts, head liners, political venues, trade shows, etc.  These things generate revenues for the city.  If Austin wants a piece of the action, Austin must put its feet into the fire.

Besides, Austin is one of the most liberal cities in the country.  Surely, liberal Democrats can build something, for once, with their own money?

You're right. Shared revenue is the key. But what is the cut and for how long? Is it just enough to cover the city's cost or can the city make a substantial profit for decades on it? Also, what does the revenue go to? There is a number of issues to work out so this isn't going to be resolved by this year, likely Spring 2016 IMO.

 

[doc longhorn]

You're right. Shared revenue is the key. But what is the cut and for how long? Is it just enough to cover the city's cost or can the city make a substantial profit for decades on it? Also, what does the revenue go to? There is a number of issues to work out so this isn't going to be resolved by this year, likely Spring 2016 IMO.

At worst, Austin will only have a 50% $$ footprint in the project.  I said this tongue in cheek, but there really is some validity to it - no liberal in the world will shell out 100% of their own money and UT will probably pick up the bulk of the construction cost anyway.  and don't forget the tax structure.  Most likely UT will undertake the burden for the whole tax structure and any Austin sponsored event will be tax free, i.e.;  Texas will be paying the annual taxes and Austin gets a free tax ride.  I would wager, in fact, the tax issue will be one of the major discussion points, if not the crux of the whole deal.

Bottom line, however, is this is a win/win scenario for Austin and the cheap bastards that live in Austin need to pony up, for once.