Soccer in Nashville

[PaulChinetti]

9 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Good point. But we can't let the 59% hide behind their democratic victory... they still have to defend their moral position.  Why should some elderly fixed-income residents be forced to subsidize their ticket costs on game day?  Shouldn't the super-fan who finds themselves unable to afford the true cost of a ticket (including the stadium) simply resign themselves to live a boring life because they can't afford the fun they so greatly desire?  Or is it an every-man-for-himself world now where even the un-satisfied need for entertainment is a good enough reason to take money from someone else, and leverage the local government as the apparatus for taking that money?

What in the world are you talking about?

We all subsidize everyone each and every day. If you don't want to pay for other people, then take yourself to a deserted island and live as a hermit. We live in a society where everyone subsidizes everyone on a daily basis. It's how modern life works. 

Also the people that pay for PSLs and the the tickets for those seats every year do pay quite a pretty penny for those seats.

I can't tell if you are trolling or not 

[Armacing]

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

What in the world are you talking about?

We all subsidize everyone each and every day. If you don't want to pay for other people, then take yourself to a deserted island and live as a hermit. We live in a society where everyone subsidizes everyone on a daily basis. It's how modern life works. 

Also the people that pay for PSLs and the the tickets for those seats every year do pay quite a pretty penny for those seats.

I can't tell if you are trolling or not 

Come on now, I've been around long enough to know the people in this thread are above-average intelligence - including you.  You can tell by reading your posts that you are a smart dude.  Don't pretend to be confused, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

There is a huge difference between government services like roads and schools, etc. that we all pay for and we all (in theory) get the benefit of and a deal like this stadium.  A government is a non-profit endeavor. 

If the stadium and football club was owned by metro and run as a non-profit, then I think it would at least be more defensible.  But you cannot say (with credibility) that every profit-making venture in "modern life" is subsidized.  That is not how modern life works.  There is a space in society for profit-making ventures and it's my opinion that such risky ventures should be privately funded. 

[nashvylle]

5 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Come on now, I've been around long enough to know the people in this thread are above-average intelligence - including you.  You can tell by reading your posts that you are a smart dude.  Don't pretend to be confused, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

There is a huge difference between government services like roads and schools, etc. that we all pay for and we all (in theory) get the benefit of and a deal like this stadium.  A government is a non-profit endeavor. 

If the stadium and football club was owned by metro and run as a non-profit, then I think it would at least be more defensible.  But you cannot say (with credibility) that every profit-making venture in "modern life" is subsidized.  That is not how modern life works.  There is a space in society for profit-making ventures and it's my opinion that such risky ventures should be privately funded. 

That's fine, but this financing was put in place two years ago, so why are we talking about it again?

Also, morality is subjective, therefore what government does and does not do is proposed by the mayor and voted on by council members (at least in Nashville). This deal was proposed and voted on. If you hate it, that's your right, but we are two years past this vote. 

 

[titanhog]

In the end, Ingram should not have agreed to the Fairgrounds deal, mainly because anyone who knows the history of that piece of land could have told you there would be a dogfight to use it.  Metro has tried to change things on that land for decades....and an element of citizens in this city fight it tooth and toenail...and for the most part, those citizens keep winning.

IF Ingram actually gets to build on that land, maybe he'll be happy with the end result, or maybe he'll be kicking himself wishing he had figured out a way to go buy the land and finance on his own somewhere else.  That land is cursed. 

[Armacing]

2 hours ago, nashvylle said:

That's fine, but this financing was put in place two years ago, so why are we talking about it again?

Because there is no statute of limitations on the public's ability to call out institutional corruption when they see it, even if they see it 2 years late.

[nashvylle]

51 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Because there is no statute of limitations on the public's ability to call out institutional corruption when they see it, even if they see it 2 years late.

A deal was presented, discussed, voted on, approved. How is that corrupt? 

[Armacing]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 2:58 PM, nashvylle said:

A deal was presented, discussed, voted on, approved. How is that corrupt? 

Easy:  Who's idea was it to present that to the council?  Who convinced the council members to vote for it?  Who in the administration approved the council's decision?

Unless every privately-owned for-profit business in Nashville has a way to apply for government funding for their business and make their case to the council, then this is a corrupt deal for politically connected cronies.  The discussion is a mere formality if the council members have already been lobbied by the soccer investors and real estate developers to vote for the project.  I don't see how you could characterize a scenario where a rich developer convinces the council to approve public funding for his private business as anything but institutional corruption.  And the more "open" and "transparent" the corrupt practice is, with discussions and votes, the more it takes on the appearance of being a legitimate government function, and it provides talking points for super-fans who need to defend the corruption from critics.

[nashvylle]

48 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Easy:  Who's idea was it to present that to the council?  Who convinced the council members to vote for it?  Who in the administration approved the council's decision?

Unless every privately-owned for-profit business in Nashville has a way to apply for government funding for their business and make their case to the council, then this is a corrupt deal for politically connected cronies.  The discussion is a mere formality if the council members have already been lobbied by the soccer investors and real estate developers to vote for the project.  I don't see how you could characterize a scenario where a rich developer convinces the council to approve public funding for his private business as anything but institutional corruption.  And the more "open" and "transparent" the corrupt practice is, with discussions and votes, the more it takes on the appearance of being a legitimate government function, and it provides talking points for super-fans who need to defend the corruption from critics.

Again, it's not corrupt. Rich people being able to lobby politicians more so than mom and pops is the way of the world. Is it fair? No. 

 

 

[volsfanwill]

8 hours ago, Armacing said:

Easy:  Who's idea was it to present that to the council?  Who convinced the council members to vote for it?  Who in the administration approved the council's decision?

Unless every privately-owned for-profit business in Nashville has a way to apply for government funding for their business and make their case to the council, then this is a corrupt deal for politically connected cronies.  The discussion is a mere formality if the council members have already been lobbied by the soccer investors and real estate developers to vote for the project.  I don't see how you could characterize a scenario where a rich developer convinces the council to approve public funding for his private business as anything but institutional corruption.  And the more "open" and "transparent" the corrupt practice is, with discussions and votes, the more it takes on the appearance of being a legitimate government function, and it provides talking points for super-fans who need to defend the corruption from critics.

the only thing stopping most people from doing that is their own effort.    its like the amazon deal,  the were not offered any incentive that ANY business cannot also ask for and receive. 

[Armacing]

16 hours ago, volsfanwill said:

the only thing stopping most people from doing that is their own effort.    its like the amazon deal,  the were not offered any incentive that ANY business cannot also ask for and receive. 

Oh I see now:  Instead of spending their efforts towards providing quality services and products to customers at the lowest possible price, businessmen/women should actually spend their efforts towards lobbying the local government for a subsidized loan.  Got it.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Armacing

[ruraljuror]

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

Oh I see now:  Instead of spending their efforts towards providing quality services and products to customers at the lowest possible price, businessmen/women should actually spend their efforts towards lobbying the local government for a subsidized loan.  Got it.

Business men and women are certainly within their rights to lobby the government for whatever they want.   Your gripe should be pretty much exclusively with the politicians who oblige those lobbying efforts.

In terms of local political corruption, it seems to me that there's a lot more of 'old boys club' stink on the Eakin deal by the trolley barns than there is on the the MLS stadium deal, for example.  In the case of the Ingram deal, it actually seems like an extremely favorable deal for the city relative to most current and historic stadium funding deals that I'm aware of given that we're pretty much just on the hook for underwriting the loans and offering up some severely underutilized public land in exchange for getting a new pro sports team with Nashville's name on it.   That's a steal for the city in consideration of all the additional branding/tourism value that we can potentially get in return, with an extremely limited downside if the team fails to gain traction.

Regardless, that's just my position of course, and I certainly would understand if you disagree and want somebody to blame - but Ingram seems like an odd target here if corruption is your main issue.   It's not like Ingram is the mayor and is funneling hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to his own golf courses or using trade policy to secure foreign patents for his daughter's businesses or something.  There is plenty of corruption happening right out in the open today that doesn't require you to rehash a two year old argument in order to make your anti-corruption point, if that's your goal.  

[Ingram]

Yeah we should just give 10 acres of land to a billionaire so he can build a "mixed-use" development. After all he can't possibly afford to purchase it.

What are the benefits? It's not like he has succesfully enacted policies that have created jobs for millions of Americans.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Ingram

[ruraljuror]

1 minute ago, Ingram said:

Yeah we should just give 10 acres of land to a billionaire so he can build a "mixed-use" development. After all he can't possibly afford to purchase it.

We didn't just give it to him, Ingram.  He's paying 150 million to bring a team to town to take the Nashville Soccer Club to the top league in American Soccer.  And that's just the franchise fee.  I think Ingram is putting more than enough skin in the game for the city to carve off a small piece of drastically underutilized city property in return.  Seems like an extremely favorable trade from the city's standpoint if you look at it objectively.  

[Armacing]

I'm actually in favor of the city (or state? - whoever) selling the fairgrounds land and I'm actually in favor of them building a soccer arena.  I think it's a growing sport that could also be embraced by certain demographics who are not enthusiastic about the current professional sports teams we have in Nashville.  So please don't get the idea I am against this plan.

My only "goal" was to keep us all intellectually grounded in the true nature of this deal.   Some people were getting angry at the new mayor (who I do not support, by the way) for putting the brakes on this project.  My commentary on that outrage is basically "Hold on, you do realize this plan involves taking tax money and using it to invest in a private business, right?  That's not really a government function, is it?"

So I was very interested in seeing the different arguments in favor of that plan, and I learned a few things I didn't know about how the average person (or in the case of this forum, the above-average person) rationalizes the things they see around them.  As an anthropological exploration, I would say it was a very productive discussion.  Of course, it's always hard to separate the emotions, but hopefully no hard feelings?

[jan smit]

For investment reasons I am quite interested in the discussions going on about the building of a MLS-stadium at the proposed location at the fairgrounds land. I have been told that Americans find the idea of living close to a soccer stadium attractive (whilst we in Europe are not so keen). Is this correct? Also I am interested in your opinions re: the chance that this stadion actually will be built: are we talking (almost 100% vs 50/50?

[Ingram]

1 hour ago, jan smit said:

For investment reasons I am quite interested in the discussions going on about the building of a MLS-stadium at the proposed location at the fairgrounds land. I have been told that Americans find the idea of living close to a soccer stadium attractive (whilst we in Europe are not so keen). Is this correct? Also I am interested in your opinions re: the chance that this stadion actually will be built: are we talking (almost 100% vs 50/50

"They".....sent Cooper here to be mayor.

He won the election.

muahahahahahaha!

It won't get built.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Ingram

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, jan smit said:

For investment reasons I am quite interested in the discussions going on about the building of a MLS-stadium at the proposed location at the fairgrounds land. I have been told that Americans find the idea of living close to a soccer stadium attractive (whilst we in Europe are not so keen). Is this correct? Also I am interested in your opinions re: the chance that this stadion actually will be built: are we talking (almost 100% vs 50/50?

Hi Jan...welcome to the board.  

I would imagine that some of the younger crowd would enjoy living close to a stadium, if it's a "neighborhood" type stadium with lots of activity, bars, restaurants.  Like downtown Nashville with Bridgestone Arena (where the Nashville Predators play)...there are thousands living, working, eating, partying, etc within a block or more.  That's the "perfect" example.  Not exactly sure how it will be out at the fairgrounds where the soccer stadium will be.

As for percentage...I'm pretty sure a soccer stadium will be built somewhere...and probably at least a 90% chance it will still happen at the fairgrounds...but there are still a few people who don't want it there.

[ruraljuror]

3 hours ago, Armacing said:

I'm actually in favor of the city (or state? - whoever) selling the fairgrounds land and I'm actually in favor of them building a soccer arena.  I think it's a growing sport that could also be embraced by certain demographics who are not enthusiastic about the current professional sports teams we have in Nashville.  So please don't get the idea I am against this plan.

My only "goal" was to keep us all intellectually grounded in the true nature of this deal.   Some people were getting angry at the new mayor (who I do not support, by the way) for putting the brakes on this project.  My commentary on that outrage is basically "Hold on, you do realize this plan involves taking tax money and using it to invest in a private business, right?  That's not really a government function, is it?"

So I was very interested in seeing the different arguments in favor of that plan, and I learned a few things I didn't know about how the average person (or in the case of this forum, the above-average person) rationalizes the things they see around them.  As an anthropological exploration, I would say it was a very productive discussion.  Of course, it's always hard to separate the emotions, but hopefully no hard feelings?

I very much appreciate this response and there are certainly no hard feelings.  I agree with a lot of what you are saying (including the difficulty of separating emotions from the issues) - but again, if your complaint is against government then your anger with John Ingram is misdirected.  I say blame the politicians if you think the city made a mistake, then we can move on to debating whether or not the city did in fact make a mistake instead of getting lost in the weeds.

7 hours ago, Armacing said:

Oh I see now:  Instead of spending their efforts towards providing quality services and products to customers at the lowest possible price, businessmen/women should actually spend their efforts towards lobbying the local government for a subsidized loan.  Got it.

What you're missing here is that lobbying the local government IS a part of providing quality services and products to customers at the lowest possible price.  These are not contradictory ideas you're promoting, but complementary ones.  Because Nashville benefits from the MLS team and from the stadium infrastructure and fairground redevelopment that comes with it, it makes sense for the city to support the project.  Bear in mind, the old model for city/stadium finance (where the city essentially financed the entire project) took this principle to illogical conclusions - but having the city provide no support would be equally illogical to the opposite extreme.  This team will represent the city whether any particular citizen likes that or not.  The branding value, tourism dollars, and the redevelopment of underutilized property  aren't enough for cities to justify shelling out half a billion dollars or more for construction costs, but those assets seem pretty clearly worth the pretty advantageous deal that the city got in our particular MLS stadium case study.  More importantly, I can't imagine that you would take the position that those assets are worth nothing and that the city therefore shouldn't contribute anything.  Assuming you're not trying to take it to that illogical conclusion, then the dispute here becomes a matter of assessing that value - which the city and the team did in a transparent manner with no outward indications of any corruption coming into play so far as I can tell - as is evidenced by the favorable deal the city got relative to other similar stadium projects.

4 hours ago, Armacing said:

"Hold on, you do realize this plan involves taking tax money and using it to invest in a private business, right?  That's not really a government function, is it?"

I think your statement here highlights the crux of our differing perspectives.  I would argue "That" is in fact a function of government and has been since pretty much the beginning of government.  In fact it's essentially unavoidable unless the government literally controls everything outright (e.g. land, means of production, enslaved labor force).  In early monarchies, kings invested in their nobles, for example, who in turn invested in their feudal labor, etc.  Even once democracy was invented - 'upper' legislative chambers tended to be made of exclusively landholders, which obviously was not a system that the non-landholders would probably have created were they in charge.  We'd call these kinds of things public-private partnerships now, but it's not exactly a new concept to say the least.  

At the core of your position here - I think - is the common notion that government shouldn't pick winners and losers, which is a statement I'd largely agree with.  The nuance, however, is that corruption rears it's ugly head in the 'picking' part, not in the fact that winners and losers will be created as the result of government action, since every conceivable decision that a government makes creates some winners and some losers.   Unfortunate though it may be, having a transparent process for 'picking' those winners and losers is the closest that we as a species have come to fairness in governance, so far at least.  

[Armacing]

16 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

...your anger with John Ingram is misdirected.  I say blame the politicians if you think the city made a mistake...

First off I want to say "Thank you" for that great response, and you have proven once again my often repeated hypothesis that this board is populated by some true intellectuals.  Bravo!

Now, addressing the sentence above:  I don't have anger towards John Ingram, I think he is a smart/rational individual who looked at the market dynamics in Nashville.  He correctly determined that a soccer team/stadium/endeavor would only be possible with government assistance because there is not enough demand for that product to support it simply by voluntary ticket purchases by soccer fans.  So, as a business man who wanted to make money, he decided to use the police power of the metro government to extract money from the tax payers involuntarily and direct it towards his soccer plan.  And I don't think the politicians made a mistake in the application of current laws during this process.  Rather, my position is that the entire system is flawed and "corrupt" in that it does allow this type of thing to occur by law.  But I still fault John Ingram for choosing to go that route, because he could have taken the moral high road and simply given up on this project rather than accept public funds.

 

16 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Because Nashville benefits from the MLS team and from the stadium infrastructure and fairground redevelopment that comes with it, it makes sense for the city to support the project. 

But you have to admit that Nashville would benefit from any major investment and development, whether it is a new stadium and team, or a new factory, or a new corporate headquarters.  Once you accept the notion that the city government is a type of investment banker that invests in business to generate tax revenue, then that requires a higher level of sophistication in the proposal vetting process - if the goal is to maximize return.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are probably hundreds of other business ideas that would generate a higher tax revenue return than the soccer stadium.  Picking the best investment is actually quite difficult in reality - a problem that central planners have been struggling with since the Bolshevik revolution (I hope nobody gets triggered by that reference, but alas, it's probably inevitable if we dive this deep into any issue).

16 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

 This team will represent the city whether any particular citizen likes that or not.  The branding value, tourism dollars, and the redevelopment of underutilized property ... I can't imagine that you would take the position that those assets are worth nothing and that the city therefore shouldn't contribute anything.

These are some very insightful sentences here... I had to think hard about this one.  The way you talk about branding and asset utilization and continuous revenue streams would be right at home in the executive offices of any world class corporation.   But I wonder if you constantly keep in mind true nature of government when you look at its operation through that lens of corporate best practices?  How much importance do you assign to the fact that tax dollars are taken by force?  For me, that is just about the most crucial fact in my philosophy about the legitimate scope of government. 

Somewhere out there is a fixed-income granny who wants to buy a new pair of shoes, but according to your argument, she should not be allowed to buy those shoes, rather, she should be forced to purchase a soccer stadium.  I still think a project like that is fundamentally different from other government services like police/courts/fire department, etc. where everyone pays taxes for a public service that serves everyone equally and operates on a not-for-profit basis.  For those services, I can see the argument of why the granny's money needs to be take because even she benefits, but for the stadium, I don't see how she benefits (assuming she never wanted to go to a game - no offense to soccer loving grannies).  And I definitely don't see any basis for John Ingram profiting from the money taken from that granny.

17 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

At the core of your position here - I think - is the common notion that government shouldn't pick winners and losers, which is a statement I'd largely agree with.  The nuance, however, is that corruption rears it's ugly head in the 'picking' part, not in the fact that winners and losers will be created as the result of government action, since every conceivable decision that a government makes creates some winners and some losers.   Unfortunate though it may be, having a transparent process for 'picking' those winners and losers is the closest that we as a species have come to fairness in governance, so far at least.  

Wow, great paragraph!  I think you summarized our two positions perfectly.  The only thing I would add to that would be that it is incumbent upon us as concerned citizens to try to make sure the "losers" as a result government actions are (for lack of a better term) bad guys.  Thieves, murders, fraudsters, terrorists, etc.  Those people should always find themselves the victims of government actions, whereas the peaceful, productive, honest people in society should always find themselves the beneficiaries of government actions.   Returning to my simplistic example of the fixed-income granny, I would like to find a way for the City of Nashville and John Ingram in particular to be "winners" without the granny having to be the "loser".  I'm looking for the elusive win-win scenario, and I think the classic example of that is free exchange in a free market.

[ruraljuror]

Thanks for your thoughtful response and for the kind words, as well.  I find myself agreeing with most of what you're saying here, but I will quibble with a few points as outlined below.

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

Rather, my position is that the entire system is flawed and "corrupt" in that it does allow this type of thing to occur by law.  But I still fault John Ingram for choosing to go that route, because he could have taken the moral high road and simply given up on this project rather than accept public funds.

I think your assessment of the entire system as flawed is certainly fair (what system isn't?), but in this case, that moral highroad is in direct conflict with his legally enforceable fiduciary duty to other stakeholders to maximize the value of (his and) their money.  When choosing between a moral obligation and a legal obligation, the law tends to win out - especially when money is involved - although I'd agree with you that's a morally problematic position to take, thus the systemic flaws and the cycle continues.

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

But you have to admit that Nashville would benefit from any major investment and development, whether it is a new stadium and team, or a new factory, or a new corporate headquarters.  Once you accept the notion that the city government is a type of investment banker that invests in business to generate tax revenue, then that requires a higher level of sophistication in the proposal vetting process - if the goal is to maximize return.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are probably hundreds of other business ideas that would generate a higher tax revenue return than the soccer stadium.  Picking the best investment is actually quite difficult in reality - a problem that central planners have been struggling with since the Bolshevik revolution (I hope nobody gets triggered by that reference, but alas, it's probably inevitable if we dive this deep into any issue).

This is a great point.  

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

How much importance do you assign to the fact that tax dollars are taken by force?  For me, that is just about the most crucial fact in my philosophy about the legitimate scope of government. 

Somewhere out there is a fixed-income granny who wants to buy a new pair of shoes, but according to your argument, she should not be allowed to buy those shoes, rather, she should be forced to purchase a soccer stadium. 

Here is my biggest dispute with your response and philosophy in general.  I can not agree that taxes are taken by force from citizens.  We hand over those tax dollars voluntarily - maybe not in accordance with an agreement that we personally/explicitly have made - but it is in accordance with an agreement that our ancestors made that we continue to reap the benefits of through the heritage of citizenship.  Also, keep in mind that you can in fact renounce your citizenship should you decide that it's no longer worth honoring the agreements made by your ancestors.

Thinking of taxes as federal theft is similar to viewing HOA fees in your apartment building as theft.  You can try to elect a new HOA board to reduce or eliminate those fees. Failing that, you can move into a new building with lower (or no) fees.  But to conflate those fees with some organization picking your pocket removes your own agency and accountability in the process, which is substantial.

That said, your point about the fixed-income granny buying shoes is well taken.  I do believe that said granny may benefit from the new MLS team in ways that even she may not appreciate, but these are the kinds of exceptions and carve outs that make tax law complicated.  We ought to do everything we can to make sure that these granny's aren't among the 'losers' when crafting new policies, but we can't raise new hotel taxes to cover literally everything, and sometimes people don't even realize when they're actually among the 'winners' group despite themselves (e.g. the fairgrounds new expo center crowd).

In any case, thanks again for the very solid reply - I appreciate it!!

[PaulChinetti]

https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comments/dpqqli/here_is_a_breakdown_of_all_future_stadiums_in_mls

Here’s a good rundown of all the new MLS and USL stadium in the pipeline. Some are crazy looking some are ok.

 

[markhollin]

Nashville Soccer Club announced that it will open its inaugural MLS season at 7 p.m. on Feb. 29, 2020 with a home match against Atlanta United at Nissan Stadium. Atlanta, one of the league's newest and most popular clubs, won its MLS Cup championship in 2018.

The crowd should be quite large, not only because it is the first game In Nashville's MLS history, but Atlanta will have a huge contingent of fans coming north from Georgia.  Will be a spirited atmosphere against our natural rivals right from the get-go.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2019/11/18/nashville-s-newest-pro-team-sets-date-for.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

[Titans10]

20 hours ago, markhollin said:

Nashville Soccer Club announced that it will open its inaugural MLS season at 7 p.m. on Feb. 29, 2020 with a home match against Atlanta United at Nissan Stadium. Atlanta, one of the league's newest and most popular clubs, won its MLS Cup championship in 2018.

The crowd should be quite large, not only because it is the first game In Nashville's MLS history, but Atlanta will have a huge contingent of fans coming north from Georgia.  Will be a spirited atmosphere against our natural rivals right from the get-go.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2019/11/18/nashville-s-newest-pro-team-sets-date-for.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

I’ll be coming from Chattanooga, I hope they can sell out Nissan, even if it means there are 30,000 Atlanta United fans, it will be quite the atmosphere and a great way to kick off for NSC. 

Hopefully Nashville stays competitive in this one. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Titans10

[nashvylle]

2 minutes ago, Titans10 said:

Hopefully Nashville stays competitive in this one. 

Hopefully Nashville WINS* in this one.

[nashvylle]

Anyone with soccer knowledge able to opine on how the expansion draft went for Nashville SC last night?