No, because not being in New York is likely to cost them a lot more than paying rent in Giants Stadium.
We now know Bud Selig's BigSoccer ID. However, I do believe that MLB has no business expanding again. Now that Washington has its team, it's reached the point now that there is no market in North America without an MLB team where you can say that it would be a sure-fire success in that market. Every prospective market is too small or too crowded or not rich enough.
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/mls/schedule/index.jsp?year=2004 2004 coming off a MLS Cup, with Donovan on the team, home opener on a saturday against Chicago attendance: 8,230 next game - Adu - 17k (LA drew 27k the week before, Met 31k the week after; other 1st Adu away games 31k Colorado, 19k NE, 25k CHI, 13k Dallas, 26k KC, 23k C'Bus) 2 games later - 7,522 things improved, but it's not like he was totally making something up
By the same logic you can say the Quakes should stay because they sell out their stadium and the Colorado Rapids are a runaway success because they draw crowds of 60,000.
Interesting dynamic in San Antonio. A bunch of folks with huge chips on their shoulders related to Dallas and Houston and their sports teams. A very big chip on their shoulders related to youth soccer. The interesting thing about the city is that it has a very low per capita income. It is going to be interesting to see if they try to make this a relatively cheap ticket to get lots of folks in the stands. it is going to be an interesting test market. San Antonio also was one of the first "one sport" team cities around with the Spurs in the ABA. They are going to do this right, and the whole city is going to be behind them, unlilke, say, Dallas, where the city essentially let Frisco FC get away. And now I have an excuse to visit my parents when FC Dallas plays there!
Not according to Don Garber in the NY Post 3/15/05 "MLS commissioner Don Garber said the league can exist without a team in New York, but can't survive with an unsuccessful one in New York. And with the Metros losing two to three times as much as any other MLS club due to a horrid lease deal, they'll be unsuccessful as long as they stay at Giants Stadium."
that's called negotiating and making an empty threat though at some point enough will be enough. I don't think we're close yet.
I agree, Dallas has struggled, I am not sure two teams is such a good idea, but SA sounds okay, but 3? That's just asking for problems. Don't bring up California, the Galaxy is the best team, business wise, and Chivas is still up in the air. MLS needs to calm down on making promises on expansion cities, let's wait and see how things work out for the next two seasons.
Hold on a minute! Dallas' attendance was very strong until they did two things: unloaded almost all of the popular Latino players at the same time they moved to Southlake's joke of a field which was impossible to find or get to. Prior to all of that, the attendance was getting very strong, and closing in on 20,000 average. Add the new Frisco stadium, which will be easy to get to on the tollway, and attendance should be strong, especially since there is a new hispanic flair to the team (Ruiz, Nunez, Pareja, etc.).
Please find me the string of Dallas home games that had attendance averages anywhere near 20K. To the best of my knowledge, they don't exist.
Umm try next Spring. And it will probably be at KCs expense according to my sources. SJ has a better organized sppporters group that is working hard on a deal to keep the team there. Kansas City has a bunch of people on the list saying stuf like "whats going on with the team?" You use your logic. Frankie
Wow, you must have a really good source. I better start packing my bags. Thanks for the "logic" lesson there. Here's some more. When people talk out of their ass like you, they look like morons.
I realize the statement was part of the negotiation. I also think this deal with San Antonio is part of it. I am not saying SJ and KC are not the prime candidates to be moved to San Antonio, just that the Metros are not untouchable and have to be seriously considered part of the relocation to San Antonio conversation if Harrison or new lease terms can't be worked out.
The "box shape" of the AlamoDome may actually add to soccer intimacy. This shot sure doesn't make it seem like a cavernous 60,000 seater.
I found these pics. http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadiu...ited_states/texas/san_antonio_alamodome.shtml
Oops. Give this site a few hits. Wisconsin Band at the "Alamo Bowl." Plenty of inside stadium shots: http://uwband.dyndns.org/pics/2002/alamo/alamobowl-03.shtml
http://www.psjanband.com/Pictures/2003 AlamoDome/IMG_0001.JPG The above picture (a little big, IMHO, to post directly) is a good one, because it gives you a feel for what the decks look like from ground level. You'll also notice how much wider they could make the pitch than the football field. As well, notice the tarp covering a section of the upper deck. Perhaps not a bad idea to put those up for all of it. Here's couple more shots of those tarps. http://www.psjanband.com/Pictures/2003 AlamoDome/IMG_0023.JPG I must say as someone who went to several spurs games, at both 'regular capacity' of 20k or so and 'increased capacity' for big games or promo games, the tarping off of the upper deck was not very distracting. the real distraction was curtaining off half of the floor space. Now, one of the two did do a lot to deaden the sound, but I really don't know which one. A possibly comparable strucure, Atlanta's Georgia Dome, seems pretty much like a mausoleum even when 75% full, but then it seats at least 10-12k more people, and has a roof made of plexiglass, so that may have something to do with it.
There is arguably more of an Irish flair, since Pareja is going to get limited playing time, and Nunez won't get significant playing time by Clarke for awhile. Frisco doesn't need Hispanic fans, and may not even want them. Just being realistic.