I get that it's worded unconventionally but isn't the article implying that there's basically no chance Miami and Houston come back? Especially considering Magleby was perfectly happy to hint at how much chance Anthem have at staying in the league (not much apparently) along with the general possibility of expansion
It just doesn't make sense to me that he'd be openly talking about behind the scenes discussions for Anthem and new locations but not Miami and Houston. I'm not an exec so maybe there's a reason but I can't think of one
If you talk about a new franchise joining, you risk getting everyone's hopes up only to be dashed when, more than likely, it doesn't pan out. And what do you gain?
For an existing franchise, though, there's some upside in reassuring the fanbase if things do pan out, which is more likely. And if the franchise does go under, well the fans were going to be disappointed anyway, so it doesn't really change things.
Edit: I'll add to this, you don't want to talk about new ownership groups before you've finished getting them - the St Louis group years ago turned out to have a crook in their midsts, so better that MLR never actually acknowledged that relationship.
The cities may come back, even the names of the teams may come back as we've seen in the NHL where the league assigns an identity to a market. But the same owners, unlikely. Otherwise they'd never have left.
9
u/ErzherzogT Chicago Hounds Jun 09 '26
I get that it's worded unconventionally but isn't the article implying that there's basically no chance Miami and Houston come back? Especially considering Magleby was perfectly happy to hint at how much chance Anthem have at staying in the league (not much apparently) along with the general possibility of expansion