Kenn, it seems in your effort to be nasty, you were wrong. You're obviously generally knowledgable, so I don't know why you have to be a jerk. "We’ve often talked about the neighborhood surrounding Sahlen’s Stadium as a perceived barrier to drawing more visitors. It’s been proven time and again if stadium offers great programming, people have no hesitation going, but the perception problems remain. The neighborhood, called JOSANA, has been gradually improving over time. A new public square and garden have been built. Habitat for Humanity has built about 40 homes. Cornerstone is building more. Now the city is putting 29 lots up for sale. Some are in the stadium’s sight line. The city has issued a Request for Proposals for the 29 lots. The city is hoping for affordable housing, including single family homes. If nothing else. the RFP will gauge developer interest. There might not be any. That’s because the area is incredibly poor. According to a 2010 market study, there are 2,930 residents of JOSANA and slightly less than 1,000 households. The population is dropping. The media(n) (sic) family income is $20,800. The per capita income is $9,250. Nearly half of households don’t own cars. The housing stock is very old, with two-thirds having been built before 1939." AND I’ve blogged several times about the need to create a link between Frontier Field and Sahlen’s Stadium. The baseball and soccer stadiums are so close, yet so far apart. I think a stadium district would promote both assets. A plan is in the works that would at last start to connect the stadiums. The city has issued a request for proposals to expand theGenesee Riverway Trail through High Falls, Brown Square and JOSANA. This would be a rails-to-trails conversion, as CSX is abandoning track between Oak and Hague St. Linking in the two stadiums is not the primary reason the city is studying the trail’s feasibility. There is low car ownership in JOSANA, and the city identifies Lyell Ave., between Dewey and Murray as a “hot spot” for incidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists. But a nicely-landscaped trail could help build a bridge between the stadiums, making people more comfortable with Sahlen’s location. Perhaps it could be lit and staffed on game nights. http://therochesterian.com/tag/sahlens-stadium/ Gee, now who's word on this should I take? A guy who offers a map showing that two stadiums are close together but are in completely different neighborhoods (For instance, living near Vancouver I'm well aware there are new multi million dollar houses a mere one or two blocks away from the worst parts of the downtown east side.) Or a guy who not only lives in Rochester but has likely talked to former fans there and has actually gone to games in the area. Such a tough choice. To be sure, the author doesn't say that Frontier Field is in any better an area, but that Sahlen Field is, according to this author, perceived to be a problem where as I never heard anybody say that about Frontier Field, and that he makes the comment of "the stadiums are so close, yet so far apart.' both obviously leave me believing that Frontier Field is in a much nicer area. Also, to the degree that Frontier Field may be in a poor area it seems to be more than offset for fans given that it is regarded as one of the best ballparks in the U.S. The Rhinos stadium on the other hand was built on the cheap. (Of course, that is assuming Frontier Field is in a poor area, which I don't believe it is.) Also, the articles makes it clear there were a number of problems that lead to the decline in attendance (though still with attendances every USL team but Sacramento should be envious of) but it's very clear the stadium location and, to a lesser degree, the stadium itself are two of them. While I never said the stadium location was the only problem, saying it was the 'main problem' is likely an overstatement. And in regards to 'getting my history wrong' you made ONE suggestion of something that I may have been incorrect on: that of the past of the Minnesota Thunder/United. MLS, in announcing the new Minnesota team used the same history I did. I'm well aware of corporate puffery, but clearly the past history of Minnesota minor pro soccer teams is at least open to interpretation. On the USL-MLS 2 thing, yes it's early days, but if many of the MLS 2 teams continue to do poorly to very poorly it would not surprise me in the least if the USL if not MLS itself, were to ask MLS to reevaluate their relationship. I highly doubt the other USL teams would want a bunch of 'weak sisters' in their league and, if for no other reason, MLS teams would have to be concerned the impact of constant losing would have on the psyches of young players. Just look, for instance, at the decline the young players on the Edmonton Oilers. While Ryan Nugent Hopkins, Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle are still putting up decent numbers, they have all declined from previous levels and they all ended the season playing very poorly. Clearly the losing has, thus far, effected their development. Kenn, may I make two suggestions: 1.Whatever line of work you are in, don't try and work in either a human resources or a finance department 2.Next time you make a post with the primary purpose of proving you are a miserable a-h, get your f-ing facts straight.
As was stated, it's much more complex than one issue. Sure, neighborhood perceptions, and there being less clarity when it comes to parking hurt. But, as the MLS dream began to die late in the Frontier days, attendance (actual) began slipping at the end. Early on, the new owner seemed to try, but many of his ideas (fire place, a tram) were hardly effective. And, rumors of his effectiveness in the office were out there. These days, it seems he shows up for the opener, an occasional game, and largely leaves it up to Ercoli. (Which may be for the best.) But, it certainly feels like Ercoli has to do it on a tight budget. (Almost more from an operations perspective than the team they put on the field, which may be rather good this season. Luckily Lilley thrives with younger guys.) While there may have been an element of his father letting him take a swing at something he wanted a shot at (he also restarted the MLL Rattlers, which he seemed more passionate about, but then suddenly had to offload and is essentially league run now and no longer even at Sahlen's Stadium), priority one was likely protecting their investment. Logically, being it's basically bank owned, I bet they'd unload if they had the chance. And, to be frank, I don't see them thriving until that occurs. It's the little things. Like the video board is moving towards being unusable. The city seems unlikely to spend the money, and the Rhinos won't pitch in. (This is the third season of it being in rough shape.) I noticed ex-players making jokes on Twitter about the turf's condition too. A little investment would go a long way. But, to be positive, the Rhinos look good on the field. They seem to be encouraging supporters groups, and a second sprouted up this year, which may create some real atmosphere. So there are some good things going on, and reasons for optimism.
As someone in the new Flower City Stampede, we had so much fun. I also was reading the stadium is in the new Eco district that is being developed. I think that could only help going forward.
Solid weekday total (not great). After having 1001 or whatever over the weekend, I wonder if MLS2 teams will have better attendances during the week when the 1st team doesn't play as opposed to the weekends when the 1st team would be playing the same day (either in market or on TV). Some people saying I'm only watching 1 game today (like this past saturday) and they picked the RSL game on TV vs the live Real Monarch's game later that evening. Way to early to tell, but it's something to look at possibly. All that being said ... I'm still on the side that it doesn't matter what the MLS 2 attendance numbers are.
Wow. @SacRepublicFC announces it has capped season tix sales at 9,500. Team now accounts for 21% of TOTAL league attendance (24 teams).— Sactown Magazine (@SactownMagazine) May 1, 2015
It's a feature, not a bug. If you notice, only certain people feel that way. They all have something in common. Ever been to Rochester yourself? Ever called games from there? Ever set foot in the stadium? The neighborhood? The state? So you haven't been there, then? Just making sure. You have not been there. (PS I have, thank you.) Yawn. Here's two suggestions for you, kid: leave the history lessons to people who actually have done it for a while. And leave the analysis to the grownups.
No, it really isn't. The Minnesota Thunder was an actual business. It went out of business. It ceased to exist. NSC Minnesota Stars, which became the Minnesota Stars which became Minnesota United FC and will become Minnesota United FC in MLS, is a different club. Different corporation. Different business. Different team. And, no, that's not the only thing I called you out on for getting it wrong. You don't have the slightest idea about what the nature of the relationship is between MLS and USL, what MLS teams want out of the relationship and what USL wants in its league. The MLS O&O teams, which, again, have been playing for a month (which is enough, in your mind, to determine that they are "weak sisters") serve a purpose for MLS, and, oh, by the way, one of them almost went to the final last year. Every league ever has bad teams in it. You can't tell until the entire body of work is in how good or bad a team truly is. Did you just say that because young hockey players playing for a bad NHL team aren't getting better that young soccer players playing "up" (in effect), which is often done at youth levels with players to give them a challenge and a month of results that haven't been great is a reason MLS teams will want to take those players and put them in the PDL (where they can play against college players) or in "their own league" (which would have them playing only against themselves, basically, and which is what the MLS Reserve League was) so that they can feel better about themselves? That's your testimony? That's why I think you're a dope. You don't know what you're talking about.
1."Here's two suggestions for you, kid: leave the history lessons to people who actually have done it for a while. And leave the analysis to the grownups." Being a spoiled brat with the mentality of a four year old hasn't stopped you posting. 2."Ever set foot in the stadium? The neighborhood? The state?" I note you didn't actually dispute anything I posted on this. What do you dispute? The facts of the Rhno's stadium neighborhood being overwhelmingly poor, the facts that Frontier Field is in a different neighborhood? 3."If you notice, only certain people feel that way." My guess would be that everybody else just ignores your childish behavior. 4."And, no, that's not the only thing I called you out on for getting it wrong." Fine, you corrected me on two definite mistakes and two spelling errors, out of over 100 entries. 5."Did you just say that because young hockey players playing for a bad NHL team aren't getting better that young soccer players playing "up" I guess this "logic", dope, would make sense if the Edmonton Oilers were playing against themselves. As I'm sure nobody else here had difficulty understanding, my point was that the Oilers young players are not developing the way they should because they've accepted a culture of losing.
Except that the Edmonton Oilers farm team is here in OKC and not only made the playoffs but may actually win the Calder Cup. Thier young player are playing a winning brand of hockey again proving that you don't know what you're talking about do you research what you post before you post it because you've been wrong on a lot of stuff
Oklahoma City was a middle of the pack team in the AHL this year (12th of 30 with as many regular season regulation time wins as losses, 27). Obviously their players being in Oklahoma would not face the same losing culture on a day to day basis. Oklahoma City would certainly be a better team if half of the players who should be with them weren't already with the Oilers.
Of course, should OKC actually win the Calder Cup it would actually be more evidence in my favor. A lot of good young players but a senior team with a culture of losing that eventually crushes them down. Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle are both on Team Canada at the World Championships and Hall scored a hat trick today albeit against fairly lowly Germany, so, they are both certainly still decent players, but if you compare them to a number of players who were chosen around the same time as them like Tyler Seguin or the slightly older John Tavares they clearly have not developed as well.
Gee, thank you all for that "wonderful" treatise on hockey...and urban renewal...in a soccer attendance forum. Now can we PLEASE get back to the actual topic of this thread? Attendance?
What are you people going to do when I'm gone? Friday: @ Austin: 2,696 @ Seattle: 2,043 Saturday: @ Montreal: 330 @ Richmond: 3,163 @ Charlotte: 1,987 @ Wilmington: 2,526 @ Arizona: 3,088 Sunday: @ RBNY2: 398 @ Los Dos: 1,164 @ Portland 2: 4,944
Friday: @ Austin: 2,696 Is something wrong here? Over 4K for the first game. No where close since @ Seattle: 2,043 Good for a MLS2 team Saturday: @ Montreal: 330 Not good @ Richmond: 3,163 Solid @ Charlotte: 1,987 Hmmm.. @ Wilmington: 2,526 Good crowd for the sharks @ Arizona: 3,088 Good to see AZ doing well so far Sunday: @ RBNY2: 398 Really bad @ Los Dos: 1,164 Still consistently over 1K. So, yay? @ Portland 2: 4,944 Great crowd!
Oh come on......everybody enjoys a little schoolyard scuffle And I'm secretly glad to see the Rhinos hopefully getting back on track. Back in the bad ol days of the 1990's-2000's, we had some great battles with them and I got to know a few of the Stampede supporters pretty well. Their MLS stiff-arm and slow slide into mediocrity/indifference was hard to watch. If a team like Rochester could go out of business, it's a wake up call for any of our teams.....take nothing for granted.
@ Charlotte: 2,177 @ RBNYII: 380 @ Charleston: 3,126 @ Rochester: --- (eventually reported 5,179 ) @ St. Louis: 4,096 @ Austin: 2,739 @ Arizona: 2,858 @ Sacramento: 11,242
I wonder if some folks don't go to Sahlen's Stadium because it's badly in need of repair. (I also wonder if anyone who might know would say the initial concerns about the stadium location had been overcome.) Or I wonder if there might be other factors involved. I mean, that's only if we're going to listen to people who actually live in Rochester and actually talk to people. Tough choice. As for Arizona, dropping again. And last night was an absolutely perfect evening here, we have been blessed to not be in the 100s for very long into the first third of May, which rarely happens.
There was probably around 5k at the Rochester Rhinos game before it started down pouring. The lengthy delay didnt help as most people left. As someone who stayed till the end...AMAZING GAME 92nd MINUTE WIN! UNDEFEATED!
In regards to the stadium, personally, i could care less about the shape the stadium is in and all of the people i go with feel the same. we are lucky to have a 13000 capacity stadium and a good team, the stadium doesnt dictate what happens on the pitch, and whats happening on the pitch is great and worth watching. Rochester is the best team in the USL. there is no excuse for soccer fans in rochester not to go to the games.