PDA

View Full Version : The DC United and Chicago Fire Organizations


JoeW
20 Dec 2003, 03:45 PM
There's a thread in the Chicago Fire Boards looking at the Fire's organization. I've copied a response from Peter Wilt to a post I had in that thread. I think Peter Wilt's comment in the body of his message about DC United is informative. And that Peter Wilt is so active on the Chicago Board's also says something as well.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JoeW
...I think THE story of the Fire is how everyone contributes to form a real class organization. Very good fans and a kick-butt supporters group. Classy, prepared coaches (first Bradley, than Sarachan). Open GM who is knowledgable and operates with integrity (at least as much as possible within pro sports). Good infrastructure within the team itself. Players (first like Nowak who berates his teammates for not showing more love for the fans and leaves it all on the field every match, on and on to now Armas) who are more than just good players. It would be a mistake to say it's all due to Wilt. He's a big "difference maker" but the lesson about the Fire is how critical the entire organization is to success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Right on Joe. Couple comments...all this love is wonderful and all - and appreciated - but at the same time, we've only won one MLS Cup in six years and we're still middle of the pack in attendance even though we're in a major market. The successes we have had - regularly competing for championships, good branding of the team, good sponsorship revenue and TOTAL ticket revenue, good atmosphere at games, creating an emotional attachment with fans and the community, establishing integrity, honesty and pride as hallmarks and creating a successful charitable arm -are all directly attributable to hiring talented people, who work hard and have good character. That goes for the teams on and off the field. When we started, i did three smart things:

1) Visited every MLS team and every MLS League department and learned what worked and what didn't work. Most of the former was from D.C. United. Learning the latter may have been just as important, though.

2) Hired young, passionate, talented people with good character, most of whom already cared about soccer. People like Steve Pastorino, Dan Garnett, Ron Stern, Vince Formanek, Diana Lopez, and Trent Sheridan have been with the Fire since the beginning and continue to be tremendous leaders in their areas of responsibility. More than half of the Fire's original staff from 1997 remains - a remarkable accomplishment for a sports organization and one that i am particularly proud of. We hired young at the beginning and encouraged and demonstrated promotion from within. On the field, the seamless transition from Bob to Dave reflects positively on Denis, Daryl and Tommy, the team staff led by Ron Stern as well as Bob and Dave themselves.

3) Established key partnerships/relationships. Whether formal or not, we spent much of the latter half of 1997 knocking on doors, talking on the phone and meeting with key representatives who we knew we would rely on in the future: media, government, corporations, soccer associations, clubs and facilities and fans and fan groups. The TV and print advertising assault we launched October 9, 1997 was a part of this strategy and was a very worthwhile investment as it established the Fire's brand and created instant awareness.

Thanks again for all your kind words that reflect appropriately on the Fire's staff.

Happy Holidays,

peter

Knave
20 Dec 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by JoeW
There's a thread in the Chicago Fire Boards looking at the Fire's organization. I've copied a response from Peter Wilt to a post I had in that thread. I think Peter Wilt's comment in the body of his message about DC United is informative. And that Peter Wilt is so active on the Chicago Board's also says something as well.
What you posted (and the thread that it's from) are interesting but I'm not sure how exactly you see them as informative. Perhaps you could say a little more.

I guess my wondering about all this originates in these two things. First, Wilt's comments are about the DC United of six years ago. At that time DC United really was the model MLS team. Second, six years later I don't think DC United is anywhere close to being the model MLS team. So I'm not sure in what ways these comments are informative or what lesson you think we should draw here.

Organizationally, I would rank Chicago and Los Angeles much higher than DC United. Indeed, I think one could argue that all the teams with stadium plans underway are more a model MLS organization than DC United. (Well, maybe not Dallas.) In general, my impression since about 2000 is that DC United has been lagging behind much of the rest of the league. Attendance has been in decline. The team itself has been poorly run. The practice facilities are third rate. There's no real stadium prospects (that we know of, anyway). And on and on ... I'm just not sure there's much there nowadays to merit organizational confidence.

Peter Wilt says before the Chicago Fire got underway he traveled around the league to learn what worked and what didn't. At that time DC United was what worked and most every other team served as an example of what didn't. In 2003 I think you could make the case that the tables have been turned. DC United isn't working (optimally, at least) while some other teams are.

JoeW
21 Dec 2003, 07:59 AM
Knave, here's why I posted.

1. A reference and kudos to DCU--even if it is from another life-time ago. And FWIW, I actually think that (while DCU has gotten worse in some areas), we've improved in other aspects of the organization internally.

2. Some very detailed comments from Peter Wilt about why he thinks the Chicago organization is so successful and what he feels HE brought to the table. For instance, the points about "hiring young and then growing that talent internally" is one that probably a lot of folks (when they think about a soccer organization) miss.

I don't have enough of a sense to say how well DCU has also duplicated Wilt's third point (building key partnerships and relationships). Certainly there has been some effort in this regard. But I wonder what SZ would say if asked (a) who do you see as the key potential partners with DCU? and (b) how successful has the club been in developing relationships with these potential partners?

Serie Zed
21 Dec 2003, 07:46 PM
I don't think you're being fair Knave.

For the DCU folks to turn out the attendance numbers they have after four straight awful years (sorry, 2003 may have been a bit better, but still nothing that would draw a crowd on its own) really speaks well of the organization's front office.

It's not easy to sell a bad product, yet they've done more with less than anyone else in the league.

I'll also go out on a limb and say that DCU's relationship/partnership with the local print and broadcast media is as good or better than any team in the league.

Can't speak to the other business partnerships, but my gut impression is that those are probably pretty decent as well.

lightningback
21 Dec 2003, 08:14 PM
From a business model standpoint (and specifically, ticket sales), DC has been the trendsetter and visionary of the league for the other teams to follow. They have set the philosophy to focus on selling soccer to soccer people. They were the first really to focus on and create partnerships with youth soccer clubs, which benefit both the youth clubs and the MLS clubs -- creating attractive inventory (i.e. player appearances, etc) in exchange for ticket purchase commitments. Two of the former DC ticket reps are now overseeing ticket sales for Metro (Mark Washo) and the Galaxy (Michael Hitchcock.) The organization is revered by the other clubs around the league.

Knave
21 Dec 2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Serie Zed
I don't think you're being fair Knave.

For the DCU folks to turn out the attendance numbers they have after four straight awful years (sorry, 2003 may have been a bit better, but still nothing that would draw a crowd on its own) really speaks well of the organization's front office.

It's not easy to sell a bad product, yet they've done more with less than anyone else in the league.
I'm not sure how the matter of fairness works in here. What I stated was just a matter of fact, attendance has been in decline. You've brought up a good point, namely that the when looked at from the perspective of how bad the product (the team) has been, attendance has actually been remarkably good. You're probably right but that still doesn't change the fact that attendance has been in decline and the DC United organization has been unable to reverse that trend. They've mitigated it to be sure and that does speak well for them but the fact remains.

Moreover, one of my points in my original post is that the team has been very badly run these last few years and, again, there's been a lack of success turning things around. Fundamental problems remain. The inability to turn this team around, I think, also points to some organizational weakness. Maybe it's lack of will, knowledge or know-how in getting the right players. Maybe it's poor judgment in team personnel and coaching decisions. Maybe it's the third rate practice facilities. Maybe it's all these things and more. But again, since 2000 the DC United organization has been unable to demonstrate the ability to build a first rate MLS team. Hopefully a new coach will change all that, but right now the poor state of the team does point to some manner of organizational weakness.
I'll also go out on a limb and say that DCU's relationship/partnership with the local print and broadcast media is as good or better than any team in the league.
That's probably true. But some of that may also be the result of peculiarities in the local media itself. For instance, I don't think any other MLS team has a reporter of Goff's caliber covering it.
Can't speak to the other business partnerships, but my gut impression is that those are probably pretty decent as well.
I don't know either. But perhaps some others can speak to this question.

owendylan
22 Dec 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by JoeW
2. Some very detailed comments from Peter Wilt about why he thinks the Chicago organization is so successful and what he feels HE brought to the table. For instance, the points about "hiring young and then growing that talent internally" is one that probably a lot of folks (when they think about a soccer organization) miss.


Why do people think that the business side of a soccer organization is any different than that of any other company that has a product to sell? Hiring young and growing talent internally is what most companies seek to do. One reason is it's cheaper in the long run which helps to maximize profits, since labor costs are keep low, you also don't have to deal with the acquisition costs of new talent if you can keep turnover down. Many companies may not do this well, but it is what they strive to do.