Major League Soccer teams are unique. They stray far from the traditional club setup that is prevalent the rest of the world over, and are beholden on the league as whole for their existence. The franchise system is the law of the land, and no matter the issues we might have with it, won't be going away anytime soon.


The reality that MLS teams are franchises means that they're technically mobile; as we've seen with San Jose/Houston, the league is willing pick up and move a team, like a game piece on the Risk gameboard of American soccer, if the situation becomes untenable in a given city. The league can't afford franchises teetering on the edge of failure or dealing with the prospect of an debilitating stadium situation long into the future. Get them somewhere where they're wanted, or where there is at least a chance they can get a stadium deal put together.


It's on the ownership of these teams to work as hard as they possibly can to get a deal done. This is a problem for some, because the negotiation process for a land acquisition, infrastructure, or public/private deals are typically secretive by nature. Fan perception of their club's efforts suffers because it, especially when exacerbated by executives who fail to assuage fear or make comments that add fuel to the dissatisfaction fire.


In DC, the lack of real news on where the club is looking, made worse by the interest of Baltimore in luring the team, causes nervous feelings amongst their rabid fan base. Revolution fans couldn't be happy to hear more than one official claim the club is happy to stay in Gillette for the foreseeable future; even if the team is actively pursuing a new stadium, public perception might be that they aren't doing enough. San Jose's situation is slightly better, and it would be unfair to say that Lew Wolff isn't working diligently towards a permanent home for the Quakes; but the process has taken longer than most would have hoped. Do the fans put that on ownership, or place the blame squarely on local officials or the struggling economy?


And so I'm curious. For those of you out there who support a club without a settled stadium situation, how happy are you with the work being done by leadership?


With just the county to go in Houston, I'm guessing Dynamo fans would give their team a 100% approval rating, while New England, DC, and perhaps even San Jose supporters can't be too comfortable.


Here's the scale:


Strongly Approve: I'm extremely happy with the club's efforts and am confident they will get a stadium built in the near future.

Approve: I have doubts, but believe the club is doing their due diligence to get a stadium built, and am comfortable with the level of communication.

Somewhat Approve: The club could be doing more, and is not communicating clearly with the fans, but I can't find fault with their commitment.

Somewhat Disapprove: The club is making an effort I am comfortable with, but is moving too slowly or without enough urgency for my liking.

Disapprove: I have little faith in the leadership to get a stadium built, and haven't seen enough effort or communication to make me happy.

Strongly Disapprove: Ownership has made a mess of the situation and has alienated me with their public statements (or lack thereof) on a possible stadium deal; as a result, my support for the team might be affected.


Please identify your club and your rating, and of course you're more than welcome to expand on the subject with your thoughts.


While this particular post is on the stadium issue for the clubs in question (DC, New England, San Jose, and Houston), the may be a wider-reaching question on overall satisfaction with front office performance in the future.