if this becomes true and i'm involved in the SG movement around here, i would do everything in my power to have my members buy up all the season tix in the SG section. if Leslie and company come around and see that there are 1,000 tix sold to unaffiliated those seats will no longer be $250 and all of sudden that section can shrink considerably. Leslie and his people aren't ones that take meetings.
You make a good point. I would renew the crap out of those tickets at the 250 NOW. I would also beg one of the wealthier members to buy the rest and resell.
Here's an interesting article from Culture Map on the potential TV tie-in with the new Comcast Sports Network.
I'm trying to think how I should say this, but I've never thought or perceived Les and the Rockets organization to be "customer first". Or "customer friendly". My fear is that the forgotten STH plaque will be about 1% the problem we could face later.
I think we all expected as much with this. I was actually considering applying for a job with CSN until I saw the very first thing on the job description: "Must be available to work nights, holidays, weekends." I think I'll stick to just watching sports
I thought about that when I typed it, but again hopefully he sees how successful the organization is and will keep it intact.
Probably has to do with them not knowing how the SG section will work next year. I've brought it up at the meetings and they've always just answered with we're working on it. I'm sure they'll tell us something soon. 60-90 days.
Lol. If they decide to take away our discount and charge us full price, that'll only force me to buy only one ticket in that section instead of three. This will then lead me to purchasing an Astros or Aeros season ticket. They'll actually end up getting LESS money from me. I wonder if that'll happen with others?
I just went on the ticket manager site. I have an invoice for my tickets in the Supporters Section for 2013 at the same price I paid for the 2012.
LOL! I see where this is going! I guess I'm going to be FORCED to move into better seats after all. ******** it. Thug Life.
I don't mind getting charged more. How are you gonna call me out on TruMoo on here? TruMoo is amazing and you know it!
Troutseth: How confident are you in this capital call thing. I've never heard of it except in some of your posts. It is not that I doubt you -- I just wonder how solid that info is and how confident you are in it. It seems to conflict with so much other information we have.
IMNHO Everyone who wants to improve on the current ownership situation should think long and hard about it. Are you fantasizing or being realistic? Things NEVER work out the way you expect them to work out. What are the odds of it getting better? What are the odds of it getting worse? How much upside and downside is possible? Stop predicting things will magically happen the way you want it because I promise it will vary from your predictions and thoughts. The only thing we really know is that we don't know how it will work out. So realistically assess ..... Can it really get much better than we have it now? For me -- the idea that we can get a rich sugar daddy local owner who cares and will invest lots more than AEG BUT HOWEVER doesn't meddle and only makes better decisions is just pure folly. We are luckiest team in MLS. We have a wealthy long-term view owner in AEG that meddles with the Galaxy and leaves Dom Kinnear alone. I want it to never end.
Both the Portland and Kansas Stadium reports mention capital calls and, I think, the court reports from back in the day mention it as well.
I understand that capital calls have been necessary in the past. But the current statement is that there is a regular annual capital call for the amount of the player salary budget for that year. That is much different. Do those stories indicate it is an annual regular capital call? One equal to the salary budget?
It was posted in an MLS publication to the Toronto (I think) government regarding expansion. I actually got the link from others in the MLS NA forum so it doesn't originate from me. You may be able to still find it out there but it was a legit document. It was also posted in a Portland document.
Don..they may not be directly correlated but have been published as eerily equal to the salary. My understanding is they are not guaranteed but have happened annually.
On the capital call, it may be that instead of holding back distributions for the year to cover the next years OpEx that they distribute cash to all partners and then everyone puts money back in the pot. Or they just still have negative operating cash flow.
My (flawed) understanding of the capital calls is that each owner gives the league X amount of money to cover expenses (probably player salaries mostly). The monies levied by the league from ticket sales and national sponsors goes to pay for the league to run things (office, refs, etc). Teams get to keep Y, which is their local sponsors (probably minus a fee from the league) and Z, which is the SUM distribution. I don't think they are running on a negative cash flow, but it is really hard to guess at MLS' bottom line when we have so little to work with.
Point taken, but I would take Alexander over Kraft. Homerism I guess. So I imagine that it would not be the same.
I hope it is noted that my pessimism about this deal is not about Les Alexander -- and more about how sweet I think we have it now and how much I attribute Dynamo success to benign neglect by AEG. Having said that, I think there is an argument that MLS is changing and the future will require an owner that is investing more of their own money in the club, rather than just operating a revenue sharing franchise. You'll have to keep up with the Seattle's and LAGs. I'm not sold on that argument by the way -- but I respect it. Contributing to the need for change argument is the trend by owners to funnel more of their revenue streams back to themselves outside the MLS structure: i.e. SUM.