The Free Jacks podcast had an episode interviewing the owner of the Free Jacks a while ago. He was involved with the investment group that took over ATL in the interim. Obviously he's going to tell a good story and spin a specific narrative, but he seemed pretty clear he was in it only temporarily to try to keep ATL from folding and that they were out as soon as they found the right owner. He talked about not wanting to own two teams, that he didn't think it was good for the league (ahem, small shade thrown at Gilchrist there).
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Major League Rugby
52 readers
1 users here now
Community to discuss US Major League Rugby.
West:
East
Rules:
- No spoilers in post titles or bodies! See here for how to spoiler tag in posts
- Posts must be US MLR focused, please use other communities for non-MLR rugby posts
- Be respectful
- No NSFW/Adult Content
Team Communities:
Non-MLR Rugby Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I don't think anyone wants multiple teams under common ownership. I thought Gilchrist was asked to help out with Austin as a temporary, too. The whole keep them afloat for the good of the league thing. Wasn't the salary cap violation found as part of due diligence for a new owner to take over Austin?
I did not see that coming. It'd be wild if they go to either Austin or LA.
my guess is Tenseness/Nashville but that is just a wild guess
I could see Austin. When I first started watching MLR I was looking for a team to cheer for since we didn't have a team here in WI.
The team management in Austin worked hard to bring in fans, with local bands playing before and after the game, etc. Their TV side line reporter did a good job of interviewing the fans and pumping up the crowds. It had a similar type of atmosphere that I would see going to football and baseball games here.
I'm sure a lot of cities could fit the bill as well, especially in the Midwest, but I think Austin deserves another look. The Gilgronis didn't leave because of the fans, or the lack thereof.
Exactly.