Looks like the Aviators ownership overestimated on a lot of different things this year and may not have enough money to finish off the season. http://www.aviatorshangar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144 I think right now you can only bank on 3-4 teams coming back next year in the A-league Western Conference. Hopefully the Blitzz do make the move up and can survive alongside the new SLC MLS team.
"Newton said that Tuesday's attendance of less than 2,000 wasn't enough to cover the cost of running the stadium's jumbo screen, let alone pick up the tab of the players' pay and travel fees." What the ******** were these people thinking?
Well I guess DoyleG can come here and apologize for saying I was wrong all those months ago when I said the Aviators were in trouble and his response was to tell me I was over reacting to the sitaution. Or as Doyle said "I will note the fact you broke the panic button before it needed to be pushed." Really? Wrong again Doyle.
K-Head sure loves the doom and gloom part. All that rain must make him go nuts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Stadium We don't know the main points of the lease that was signed between the Aviators and the city. We can talk about the fact that only the East stands should've been rented or that the Jumbotron should be switched off. The problem is that doing such things may not have had the effect of helping the bottom line. I would suspect that the Aviators have to pay for the Jumbotron even if they aren't using it. As for Clarke, the city knew for more than a year that pro soccer was comming back to Edmonton. They could've easily made the push to the Avs to use Clakre in return for the city to give the facility the upgrades that are needed. I'm surprised that this didn't cross the minds of city planners after the mistakes of the past. Foote is a different issue as it deals with a private owner. Verdict of blame: 60% Club, 40% City Schedules and Tickets People got their seasons tickets on the basis that most games would be played on the weekend. Of course the sked came out before the CFL released their own. The Esks got the dates they wanted but pushed the Avs out of most weekend spots. This meant people like myself, who work during the week, can't be expected to attend games. No doubt this gives why attendance is poor to start with. This adds on top the fact that the start times are not concise every time. One would've expected the team to stand up to the Esks and the city. No doubt the City could've pushed the issue with the Esks and get them to hold off. The attendnace for the Women's team can bolster the argument that they can stand on their own without the need for double headers. You would expect tickets to be expensive given that it's the club that is running ticket sales. Having Ticketmaster do this would be better as one can more easily get theit tickets and not have to pay the high service charge they do now. The Avs could easily cut ticket prices as a result. Blame here: 65% Club, 20% Esks, 10% City, 5% Fans Club and Players They offered a bonus to the players that wasn't really needed. Performance bonus is one thing, a bonus for suiting up is quite another. The handling of Salinas was not good (making the promise of bringing his family here)and neither was dealing with the Turkish imports. We also have the fact that Rattee decide to follow another path alnong with having Dugas and Rago injured at the start of the season. As for Titus, it sounded like he was the highest paid player on the team. Not good to mix with a seemingly bad attitude and how he dumped on the team after being released. he should learn to handle things from the inside with acting like a clown in front of the media. Other players must keep their ego's in check as well. Verdict of blame: 85% Club (Mainly management), 15% players. EMSA and EIYSA It can be argued that a deal with the EIYSA on talent would be better. Yet hearing the problems with the organization (ie. ref's not showing up, coach's being fined for asking questions) makes the deal with the community-based EMSA sound a lot better. Having a deal with the EIYSA would've made the club look like and elites-only ground. That wouldn't have helped push the team in the public spotlight. One of the few things going right for the Aviators was the EMSA deal. Verdict: Only thing done fully right by the Aviators.
What motivation would the Esks have had to give up the stadium? Why would the city go to the Esks and say, "Hey, we know you're the biggest draw in Edmonton, but there's this startup minor league soccer team that wants to use the stadium on weekends, and we think you should let them"? Sure, the city and the Esks could have helped, but what was in it for them?
You know, good of the game, all that stuff. Because we love soccer, everybody else should bend over backwards. Okay, sarcasm off. The Eskimos have been around since, what, 1911? I'd say "I have a lease. I generate revenue. I'm a part of the city's sporting fabric. You can do whatever you like when I'm not using the building, but I'm using the building when my lease specifies. Sorry about your luck." That's just reality. I don't think the city could have or should have pushed the Eskimos, and I don't think the Eskimos would have done anything but laughed. This is nothing against Edmonton - just because yet another group of people who thought they could be the ones who would make A-League soccer work on a shoestring with inflated expectations and delusions of grandeur doesn't reflect on the city or its soccer fans. It's ownership, it seems to me.
What rain. Have had negligable rainfall this summer, just as last. Been really hot, I'd appreciate some rain. Of course when we have storms here our malls don't collapse. I really hope the Aviators survive. Of course had the owners had one iota of sense they would not be in the same situation. Half of the A-League teams are averaging less than the Aviators but aren't whining about being in near collapse. There's no way in hell the Aviators would have to pay for the jumbotron if they don't use it. There's a reason the Sounders don't use the jumbotron in their stadium.
"How can we make the WUSA look like financial savants by comparison?" One mistake just leads to more mistakes, like Hemingway's cats. A 6k stadium would have been great; a successful team like Charleston plays in a venue that size. But to start this venture under-capitalized while overspending is a recipe for a heart attack. They might have looked at the initial budget and said, "Okay, can we raise 5 times that amount before the first whistle blows?" An honest answer would have kept them out of the league, in all probablility. And underestimating the quality of the A-League? How could 'professional' managers make such a blunder. Makes me think twice about bringing a Canadian team into MLS, except that MLS is very careful about accounting practices and capital reserves.
C'mon now, now you're insinuating that it's only Canadian teams that have come into the A-League with clueless owners. Far more American A-League teams have been run by owners without a clue, don't blame this on the fact that the team was Canadian.
Agreed. I'd be more wary of letting people who've blown up franchises before get into the league. Ditto for people who are underfinanced and expect people to just show up and buy tickets en masse when they don't do it almost anywhere else.
The Esks got the dates they wanted except two that were already set for Avs games. The Esks would get those dates as primary tennant. To go beyond tthen and kick them out of dates that were no conflict was uncalled for. Nice to come up with the excuse that "the grass needs to rest". Considering how the Esks screwed over sports fans by selling the Trappers bseball team, they had an opprotunity to show they could co-exist with another team. Once again, check your facts before posting. There are plenty are articles to go around.
I stand corrected on that point. You can't dispute the evidence. But I believe most, if not all, failure-contractions at least completed the season before closing shop or re-emerging in a lower division.
As some of you may remember - I was saying that the francise in Edmonton was a bad idea. I wrote about it on www.soccer365.com at one time (sorry I don't have the exact link) but it failed for all the reasons I thought it would. Not to say "I told you so" but "I told you so." Don't expect me to cry over this.
The franchise in Edmonton was not a bad idea. They are outdrawing half of the league playing ALL weekday games. The owners the USL chose and the stadium they chose to play in were the bad ideas.
Don't lump Whitecaps in with the twits in Edmonton. Our owner has deep pockets and is building a SSS.
Here's a few things to think about. The Aviators have only played 6 home games so far. So of course revenue from tickets sales isn't the greatest but they shouldn't be thinking about folding. They have part of the schedule coming up where they have 7 straight home games. No travel costs just 7 straight games to get the fans into the park and generate some revenue. Also since all six of their games have been doubleheaders with the womens side, yet they've been announcing seperate attendances for both the mens and the womens side I took the liberty of getting both sets of attendances and adding them up for the night. After all one set of tickets were sold for both games there's no need to divide the tickets. Anyway it shows a far larger attendance number for the games. Here's the total attendance for each home date: May 30: 3,425 June 3: 5,738 June 15: 7,276 June 21: 2,044 (This is the game moved to Clarke Park) Capacity under 3,000 June 28: 4,567 July 13: 4,089 These are decent crowds, doubleheaders or not. Perhaps they should have waited to hit the panic button after their 7 straight home games.
You have got to be kidding me. I just signed on because I was searching for news of the Aviators cash crunch when I came across this posting. Before you accuse me that I don't know what I'm talking about- let me say that I've been involved in Edmonton Soccer for 15 years, coaching women's soccer for the past 8 years and Premier/Major soccer for the past 3. I've had some dealings with both EIYSA and EMSA and couldn't disagree more with some of your statements here. First of all, if the Aviators thought they could get 11,000 paying customers in the stands, they are nuts! I would put the blame 90% on the Aviators club for deciding to play in the caverns of Commonwealth instead of Clarke or Foote. Where's the realism - an initial season for a new club in a 60,000 stadium? You're far too lenient on the Aviators Doyle. Secondly you said that the EMSA deal is one of the few things going 100% right for the Aviators? WHAT?! You know why EMSA was given season passes and such? Because they threw in $10,000 into the Aviators and in return there was a suggested deal in place for Aviators youth players to only be registered in EMSA. Do you know what EMSA is? Its Community league soccer. Prior to this season, 95% of the players in EMSA couldn't play higher than div 1 soccer never mind the Aviators. EMSA players are not only less skilled than EIYSA trained players, but also in much worse fitness and conditioning and also less committed to soccer than their EIYSA counterparts. Take a look at the provincial challenges between EIYSA and EDSA over the past 10 years. And lastly - you mentioned that if the Aviators affiliated with EIYSA would have made the Aviators LESS in the public spotlight and elitist? Did you know that the Aviators youth players have played for years in EIYSA and only reluctantly considered switching to the EMSA league this season? Fans don't care whether or not young stars as Gjinni or Iachelli (women's) played in EIYSA or EMSA - just that they can play soccer. Why don't good young players want to play in EMSA? Because there is no competition. The season passes to youths WAS a good idea - except for the fact that the doubleheaders went so late AND on weekday nights i.e. school nights. Combined with the fact that the tickets would cost so much for the NON soccer playing members of the family - going to Aviators game for a family of four would be more/just as expensive as going to the Eskimos or the Trappers. An eskimo season pass for example, would cost $140 - 150 for the cheap seats. Compare that with the $200 for Aviators season passes (general). And while you can argue that the Aviators give you more value since you get both Men's and Women's - my butt gets rather sore with watching 3 hours of soccer (not includ stoppages, or intermissions).
It's a done deal. Let's hope they can float a Team Edmonton for the remainder of the year and let proper ownership have a crack next season. ------------------ EDMONTON PROFESSIONAL SOCCER RETURNS MEN'S A-LEAGUE TEAM TO THE UNITED SOCCER LEAGUES In a meeting on Sunday July 18th, 2004, the shareholders of Edmonton Professional Soccer Ltd. concluded that their dream of professional soccer in Edmonton was not financially viable. The shareholders began the Men’s and Women’s Aviators with the belief that professional soccer would benefit our community, our children, and the sport of soccer. The original plan of the company was to partner with minor soccer in Edmonton in order to promote young talent as well as to provide fun affordable family entertainment. Edmonton's youth were the primary audience for professional soccer through their attendance at games, participation in clinics, and hopefully, for some, the opportunity for the Aviator’s teams. This approach deviated from the normal business plan of soccer being a business competing for entertainment dollars. We originally believed this difference would create a fresh and successful way to market professional soccer in Edmonton. Despite everybody’s best efforts and intentions, the program did not evolve as expected, and the fan support the Aviators earned did not match expectations. Therefore, the shareholders of the Edmonton Professional Soccer Ltd. have handed back the franchise rights for the Edmonton Aviators A- league to the United Soccer Leagues. The USL has indefinitely postponed Tuesday’s A-League match between the Portland Timbers and the Aviators in Edmonton while it reviews its options regarding the remaining schedule of the Edmonton A-League team. In addition to fielding teams, the Aviators have marketed soccer camps and academies. The company is working hard to have these continue through qualified third party instructors. The soccer camps and academies currently scheduled should continue.
Would that have anything to do with the expectations being ridiculous to begin with? Do I have this list right, teams whose owners have not lasted the season, and which have had to be run by the league for the rest of a season? 2004 - Edmonton Aviators 2003 - Calgary Storm 2002 - None 2001 - San Diego Flash (right before the season) 2000 - New Orleans Storm (folded right before the season - not run by the league) 1999 - Sacramento Geckos 1998 - Atlanta Ruckus Edit - When was the Vancouver thing?