Quite honestly, a stadium not in the middle of a mudfield where you can grab a bite and walk over would significantly increase attendance. Ask the Clippers. When FCS was their home you had to wear a bullet proof vest if you left the parking lot, making their stadium essentially what CCS is, a destination. You are either going to the game or you aren't.
The trouble with that? In any given real league, half your teams (statistically) are going to lose. Every year. So if you depend solely on "winning"--you're in trouble. If it's titles you want? With 22 teams (and more on the way), 94% of the teams will be disappointed. 86% if you assume three major titles, equally divided. The Cubs would have been dead decades ago, were that the main criterion. But I do think it's a factor in Columbus, as a result of tOSU's success.
As complicated and difficult and possibly unlikely it might be to build a new stadium I just can't see any other possible thing this club could do to substantially divert attention in Columbus toward them. Team performance matters as a team that becomes associated with "not being good" will be a turn off to casual fans. I'm not certain of it, but it would seem our attendance climb in the first couple seasons of Precourt ownership was aligned with the team doing better and better concluding with MLS Cup 2015. Even if that's all true, team performance and success isn't something you can plan on or rely on, season to season. The more tangible thing the team can plan is the atmosphere, amenities, and game day experience they deliver. I don't know what this organizations plans are or what kind of funds they have access to but if this team is to survive and indeed thrive in the city of Columbus as well as stay relevant in a league rapidly growing in quality...a modern stadium in an ideal location is going to be integral.
And I think the odds of that aren't good. Lamar might have done it--bu the had deep pockets. Precourt doesn't seem to. For sure, the city won't kick in, nor with the taxpayers. I'd not be shocked if the Lindners buy the team.
True, true but there are teams in USA parity leagues that always look like winners and some that just don't. You know the teams that are usually good in the NFL, NBA and NHL even if they aren't anymore. You also know the bad and the indifferent. Even if the team is not that way that year. And unfortunately the Crew aren't even in the bad catagory where you might get a loveable loser or underdog bump, they are just indifferent. And everyone knows the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.
I wonder how different the whole club would be now if the initial stadium that was proposed to be built along side NWA would have happened?
“So, every market is unique and Columbus has its own set of circumstances,” Loughnane said. “But, league studies and recent data have shown that downtown stadiums become a critical ingredient to long-term success.” When I read this quote, I see it as an admittance of doing everything wrong the first 10-15 years. Soccer was supposed to be suburban and youth according to MLS.
We'd still likely need a new stadium, as it would not have been that different from the one that was actually built due to time constraints (basically caused by tOSU closing Ohio Stadium for renovations).
From what I remember of the pictures published of the stadium that was being proposed back in the day it looked like more of a solid structure. I think it had some kind of arch over the stadium. I understand the early drawings can be a lot different than the final product. I'm guessing that the Crew would have played in a temp stadium but we probably will never know. It would be nice if there was a Q&A with Jamie Rootes (sp?) to see what was going on around that time.
Keep in mind that the organization lost close to 9 months (IIRC) of construction time due to pushing for the Franklin County levy, and then in Dublin. Getting shot down in both of those situations actually created the time crunch and budget squeeze that HSG ultimately found themselves in. Had the Franklin County levy passed, the end design would undoubtedly be a little more aesthetically pleasing.
Yeah, CCS was #3 on the list so between Issue 1 and then the Dublin vote, we did lost quite a bit of time. Who knows if that would have allowed the full construction of the original plan (which was awesome).
But how much of it is the stadium itself and how much is the surrounding area? In theory it's a good location, near OSU campus, near access to 71. The problem has been the parking situation, the fact that there's really nothing nearby, and that they've had to go through whoever runs the fairgrounds for everything, including food vendors.
I found the thread with it in it but either the picture doesn't exist anymore or tapatalk will not load it for me. https://www.bigsoccer.com/index.php?threads/1372513/
It's not Tapatalk. I sourced the links and they are dead. And the oldest Wayback Machine snapshot from 2014 shows the content was already gone. I'll dig more when I'm on a PC.
Indeed it was. The belief was that the suburban kids would eventually turn into parents who would take second and third-gen fans. For a while, they weren't entirely wrong. They could make 1-2 phone calls and get a youth team which would mean 10-15 tickets sold. A Saturday AM appearance at a youth tournament meant a ton of tickets sold. Part of what we found out later on was that the kids weren't showing up because they were exhausted after a day of 8v8 or whatever. MLS 2.0 logic is to get the 20s and 30s with disposable income who are looking for a fun night out. (Sadly, for us this means no more appearances in parades, but that's another grief for later.) Ironically, I wonder how many of those families with kids did turn into the "MLS 2.0 fan." I'd bet a LOT of the Nordecke fits into that demographic. Ideally, they could do both...distribute 5k pocket schedules at the Dublin St. Patrick's Day Parade with more at the various 4th of July parades AND have Frankie/interns hit up community events and other places where 20-somethings congregate.
It's not unfeasable to move crew stadium. It's just steel bolted together. The concrete supports could be replicated. Meaning if Precourt gets desperate, there are options. He just needs a location near bars and restaurants. Easton, downtown, brewery district etc. Then add a roof...
That's true. I know of a case where that was actually done. New Beaver Field/Beaver Stadium ca. 1959. But I'd not expect it to be done that way, due to time frames--you only have a few months (like 2-3) to take down the old and set up the new. A new build would be better--and would make it easier to have a roof.
Didn't McCullers or somebody from the old regime once say that to build a roof for the current stadium it would have to be a freestanding structure (since Mapfre is basically just metal bleachers) and would be too expensive to be feasible as opposed to building new where the roof is actually part of the building?
I've also heard that. I think the main reason why a roof was never built was because the stadium was built to be expandable.
Dismantling Crew Stadium and moving it shouldn't be an option. I'm sure it's worth something to the Fair Commission and could be modified to accommodate the Quarter Horse Congress which has made noise about moving to a larger facility in the past.
Plus moving the existing stadium wouldn't really move the dial nearly as much hype wise for the team. If you're starting over in a new spot, start fresh and get everything exactly how you want it. My biggest concern with it is whether they'll be able to find land in a good enough location without having to pay an exorbitant amount of money.