Number of season tickets for each team.

CONFIRMED:

Seattle Sounders FC --------- 32,000 (2010)

Toronto FC ------------------- 16,000 (2012)

Portland Timbers FC --------- 14,750 (2012)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC ---- 13,000 (2012)

Philadelphia Union -- 12,000-13,000 (2011)

Houston Dynamo ------------- 12,000 (2012)

Sporting Kansas City --------- 11,000 (2011)

Los Angeles Galaxy ------------ 7,500 (2012)

Montreal Impact --------------- 7,500 (2012)

Real Salt Lake ---------- 7,000-8,000 (2011)

Chicago Fire -------------------- 6,000 (2012)

Columbus Crew ---------------- 5,000 (2012)

San Jose Earthquakes ---------- 4,000 (2012)

Colorado Rapids -------------- 3,561 (2012)

UNCONFIRMED:

Red Bull New York ----------- 7,800 (2012)

MISSING:

Chivas USA, DC United, FC Dallas, NE Revolution,

I believe that Olegunnar is responsible for keeping the list updated without avoiding why people will be able to add other links, so it is that among all those who participated in this thread we decide whether to include the official number as to the list or not .By my not include it and put it as likely.

please don't add numbers with verifiable links to the confirmed section. as soon as somebody talks to the Rapids FO about the release of the STH information and confirms the number in a published article that we can link to we will switch it ... until then there is no link. the point of this list is to have a no nonsense list where anybody can come and click the links and see for themselves that these are the official verifiable numbers. we have no idea if that was the entire list of Rapids STHs or not ... it might have seemed like it but it could be that it was a partial list or anything really.

if you would like to make a thread with a list of season ticket numbers with your own rules about verification feel free to do so.

CONFIRMED:

Seattle Sounders FC --------- 32,000 (2010)

Toronto FC ------------------- 16,000 (2012)

Portland Timbers FC --------- 14,750 (2012)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC ---- 13,000 (2012)

Philadelphia Union -- 12,000-13,000 (2011)

Houston Dynamo ------------- 12,000 (2012)

Sporting Kansas City --------- 11,000 (2011)

Los Angeles Galaxy ------------ 7,500 (2012)

Montreal Impact --------------- 7,500 (2012)

Real Salt Lake ---------- 7,000-8,000 (2011)

Chicago Fire -------------------- 6,000 (2012)

Columbus Crew ---------------- 5,000 (2012)

San Jose Earthquakes ---------- 4,000 (2012)

UNCONFIRMED:

Red Bull New York ----------- 7,800 (2012)

Colorado Rapids -------------- 3,500 (2012)

MISSING:

Chivas USA, DC United, FC Dallas, NE Revolution,

This is silly.

Yup. Ole just does not get it.

But to be fair he has done all the work so he should be able to list it how he wants. Shame he won't listen to basic logic about why the Rapids data is SIGNIFICANTLY more confirmed than any of the other numbers he listed.

Rep for whoever put the [citation needed] tag on the Rapids Wikipedia page.




Edit: Citation provided. Your move, anonymous Wikipedia editor.

Damn. Someone WP:IRSed me. Stupid Wikipedia.

A. we don't KNOW anything ... that spreadsheet could have been a list of people who bought hotdogs for all we know until the FO confirms what it was and that it was complete.

B. the issue isn't whether or not the source is or is not accurate it is whether or not anybody who comes to this thread can confirm the information for themselves. which they cannot as of now. until any person who reads this thread and looks at the list can follow a link to a reliable news source quoting the FO of the Rapids that 3,500 is the number of season ticket holders they have it can't go with the rest of the confirmed links ... that is the standard for this list and there is no reason to just abandon it in this case when the 3,500 can be listed and noted elsewhere like it is now.

There used to be a thread tracking social media numbers for the different teams. Ole didn't start it but he did troll the hell out of it to try and get his way. Then when he did start posting updates, he defended it as if he started the thread.

It was kinda funny, in that hypocritical kinda way.

The Rapids ownership group already confirmed what was in the spreadsheet. So actually, we can say with absolute 100% confidence that the spreadsheet was season ticket holder information.

I think the real issue here is that YOU don't have a copy of it.

Even if someone that has the file took out all of the personal information and then and posted the edited version online, nobody would be able to make any sense of it. The reason we know its accurate is because it has account numbers, names, renewal dates (time of day even!), number of games, number of seats for said games, and accurate contract info for every single account. Anyone that has a season ticket account can look at it and verify that its right.

I think this must be it. He has come off badly in other threads but he is hitting new depths here in his lack of understanding something so basic.

In fact I think it is safe to say we are never again going to have this much information on season ticket holders for any team.

Now we just need a team to mistakenly send out its balance sheet and we can really go to town

Quinn, has anyone done a quick calculation to see what % of season tickets are corporate based if that can be gleaned from the data?

I know we can not extrapolate that information for other cities but I have always been curious about the coroporate support of MLS. I believe it is significantly smaller than the NBA or NHL in which there season ticket models thrive on corporate support.

All the tickets are listed under a person's name, with no corporate info attached. You might be able to make some guesses based on the number of tickets they have and/or email address (but people may have personal tickets going to a corporate address anyway) but I don't think anything you could get out of it would be much better than the guesses we already make.

Corporate support likely fluctuates greatly within MLS itself. The difference in fan support and media attention varies to the point where corporate tickets for our best teams likely look close to the other leagues while those at the other end are no where near close. I mean, there's been plenty of conversation in Houston over the no-shows at the last to games possibly being corporate-related.

Brian Weightman, the team's head of ticket sales, is pleased with how the season has started off. “With a little over 8,000 season tickets sold thus far we have just re-launched our season ticket campaign with a package for all games played at Stade Saputo,"


http://thesuburban.com/news/articles/?id=article00224


Though given the mid season stadium opening, I doubt we'll get any comparable ST numbers until next year

CONFIRMED:

Seattle Sounders FC --------- 32,000 (2010)

Toronto FC ------------------- 16,000 (2012)

Portland Timbers FC --------- 14,750 (2012)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC ---- 13,000 (2012)

Philadelphia Union - 12,000-13,000 (2011)

Houston Dynamo ------------ 12,000 (2012)

Sporting Kansas City --------- 11,000 (2011)

Montreal Impact -------------- 8,000 (2012)

Los Angeles Galaxy ----------- 7,500 (2012)

Real Salt Lake --------- 7,000-8,000 (2011)

Chicago Fire ------------------- 6,000 (2012)

Columbus Crew --------------- 5,000 (2012)

San Jose Earthquakes --------- 4,000 (2012)

UNCONFIRMED:

Red Bull New York ----------- 7,800 (2012)

Colorado Rapids -------------- 3,500* (2012)

*from leaked internal document not published or available

MISSING:

Chivas USA, DC United, FC Dallas, NE Revolution,

It's his thread, just leave the man in peace... whats the harm? a few rapids fans take a hit to their ego?

What egos?

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is an online community. No one "owns" anything. A few weeks back I started a thread to post my schedule strength rankings, but I don't complain when other individuals post their own rankings. I'm open to criticism and OleGunnar should be as well, especially when the foundation of his argument isn't logical.

are you saying wikipedia isn't logical? i am simply applying the same rules of verification that they use ... that the information must be from a reliable and verifiable PUBLISHED source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

unfortunately this source wasn't published so it cannot be used for verification ... it is pretty simple ... i am assuming the people that take issue with this don't spend much time making contributions to wikipedia ... it may seem like a frustrating standard but it is a well accepted standard and it actually makes sense in an online community ... if everyone doesn't have equivalent access to the information it doesn't count. pretty simple.

Why is having a GM who mentions a rough COMPLETELY UNVERIFIED number to a random blogger considered better data than having the actual hard evidence in hand?

Your stance is arguably the most illogical I have ever read in 13 years on this site. That is quite a feat. You are entering the pantheon occupied by the elites like Sekrah, JRI, Thomas Flannigan and Oliver. Very very impressive.

i am guessing you can't read and/or didn't follow the link.

this is not a forensic site with subpoena powers doing a congressional investigation. all we need for this thread is a member of the team's FO on the record in a PUBLISHED source giving a number.

whether you believe that FO source is irrelevant. whether you like or dislike the place where said source is published is irrelevant.

would you turn in a term paper for school with a footnote that said "i got this information from some friends who got this leaked document from X" ... no ... no you wouldn't or you would fail because in order for something to be a verifiable source OTHER PEOPLE need to be also able to have access to it.

i completely trust what these Colorado fans who got this mysterious leaked spreadsheet are saying ... but unfortunately their word that they've seen some stuff is not a publicly verifiable source ... it doesn't make the grade for wikipeda ... it wouldn't make the grade for an academic paper and for the purposes of this list ... which the whole point of was to put together an IMPEACABLE list of ST numbers for each team that was beyond reproach and if anybody asked "where'd you get that number" they could simply follow the link and see (and believe or not believe) source for themselves ... it does not make the grade.

why you don't get this simple concept is beyond me but i have wasted enough time on you and it as it is.

publish
a: To make generally known
b: To make public announcement of
Merriam-Webster

When Jasonma posted the number, the information was technically published. The only thing in question here is whether it's a verifiable source.

Wikipedia's own definition of published:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Published