We have something to talk about based on them announcing demand was so high it crashed their website and they sold 30k season tickets. We don't need to know anything other than that to talk about it, as evidenced by all of the people talking about it. I didn't claim their website crashing was difficult to do, or that it was overwhelming, or even whelming, simply that it was believable enough even if it seems like something a team that wanted to gin up interest in their club would say to make their season ticket deposit numbers seem more believable.
Except Seattle had a history of supporting 1st division soccer (NASL) in very large numbers. The first Sounders game I went to in 1978 (hence my nickname) had about 40,000 in attendance at the Kingdome. You are not comparing apples to apples - more like apples to longhorns.
Had MLS hold to that standards we would have no MLS today. MLS "requirements" change everyday, it is foolish to think that there are some rules or requierements written on stone. Austin seems to be doing just fine, same as Columbus now
Do we really need to have this Austin debate in 3 different threads simultaneously (two in N&A and one in General)?
I can't remember any teams announcing number of depositors before. I know Atlanta was only saying the number of seats claimed. They didn't say 20k seats to 6k depositors, they just said 20k....and then 25....and then 30! Not sure why people are calling out Austin for not breaking it down....why would/should they?
The complaints about factual information distinguishing two situations are getting completely out of control.
Huh? There's nothing stopping Austin FC from releasing the number of registrants. They could have charged a deposit per seat if they wanted to. Loughnane has said that they won't be selling the whole stadium on a season ticket basis. Apart from a block reserved for visiting teams, they want to keep some inventory available for individual game sales. Also, he says the stadium can be expanded in its current configuration to 22,500 capacity and a decision on that will be made after the first season. So right now it's not clear how many of the people who signed up will actually get tickets.
Columbus didn't artificially inflate their numbers. I'm sure some people who put down deposits didn't make good but the sponsors did. The team certainly averaged more than 10K during the 1996 season. Austin can do things however they think best. But if they are going to finagle an inflated number they couldn't actually deliver, its fair for people to question it. Apparently they are still selling deposits (or actually selling places in line for seats they don't have).
Austin released the number they wanted to deliver for marketing/ PR reasons, like MLS releases attendance each game as they want and we blindly believe it. However people are trying to find any available detail to diminish what Austin releases.
Apart from PSV's prior history of lying, if you are going to claim to set a record, you ought to say what the number actually is and what the old record was. Currently, it's like me saying I set a world power lifting record in my garage but I'm not going to tell anyone what it is.
I think it has been asked here, but has anyone seen an attendance number for United's Open Cup match against the Union?
True that I'm not MLS. False that Don is a great backup to have. Nobody thinks he'd dispute or correct any number from any team about sales or attendance. So he isn't a credible source.
so Don, the maximum authority of MLS is not to trust, however in this same thread we blindly believe the attendance MLS gives us. I don't love Don but if you don't trust him when he talks MLS subjects then I don't know who can you believe in.
On an unrelated note, 500,000 ticket applications for the India vs. Pakistan match tomorrow at the 26,000 capacity cricket ground in Old Trafford.
No it's been categorically stated that the attendances quoted in this thread are tickets distributed, not butts in seats. If you want to discuss butts in seats there's a whole other thread.
Wow. That should be a new category. We could have: 1. Tickets desired 2. Tickets distributed 3. Butts in seats 4. Tickets paid for 5. Tickets scalped
I remember a Green Bay Packers playoff game back in the 90s where they made a huge deal out of the fact only 3 tickets went unused for the game.
Am I discussing that? or is this your best attempt to get my argument out of this conversation? If you have some context and read the main point of what I am actually arguing...
I know this was a tournament but I'll use this opportunity to say once more we need to start restricting how many friendly "home" matches El Tri plays in the US. No need to help our rivals.
Who is “we”? How is that possible? Does FIFA have that kind of authority over teams? If the Rose Bowl wants an event that will bring in good revenue and the entertainment agrees to a price who has the power to stop that? Please explain.
USSF I believe has the power to manage when other nations organize matches in the US. If not then they should. I know the contracts for Mexico bring in money for SUM but it feels like we're now actively enabling Mexico to expand their appeal and hold over youth in the US, when we should be fighting to endear kids to the US programs. The occasional friendly is fine and I agree that the myriad of teams dropping by can add to the overall appreciation for the game, but at the same time we can't sacrifice support for domestic teams in exchange for more plastics for Madrid, ManU, etc. I get the notion and agree that arguably El Tri is the most popular team in the US, but that's not ideal and as a fan of the USMNT I at least want to see an effort to undo that. Mexico plays more friendlies in the US than their own nation because those pay more and it keeps their fanbase entrenched, which I can't imagine any other team does. Well, if my business is doing something that enables a competitor I would want to change that, wouldn't I? Yes, the USMNT has plenty to do to improve itself, but there's no reason we need to be helping our rivals financially or in building support in the US.