I believe that 13,000 was for the total gates, Fire+Red Stars. I was actually surprised at how many people did stay on a crappy cold night in Chicago. There were people on both sides of the stadium of which the west side is normally closed and only the Harlem Ave. side is open for CRS games. Just disappointed that the CRS couldn't pull out a win in front of more people.
I am a "cause and effect" kind of guy. It's my nature to want to assume. If this happens, then this could happen, which in turn could cause this to happen, etc. Part of the fun is to see if your assumptions do in fact become reality.
You talking about something in the past. He could be entertaining that very possibility now. A lot of things have changed since those early days. Whoever thought he would be Governor. Let's assume his priorities have changed, now that he is Governor. Let's not forget there was another stumbling block, the ownership in Austria was not keen on the idea, and probably wouldn't have approved it anyway. But now they might might look at it differently , if they see FC Barcelona getting involved.
I would say that making assumptions and guessing what they would imply because you can is very much not a "cause and effect" thing... The latter is finding the link between two known facts, while the former is postulating about something that not yet is. But that's splitting hairs.... The Sky Blue owner "could be" doing a lot of things. Red Bull "might look at" things differently now because, yes, things are changing. But in both cases, you're assigning something that has no evidence for it yet - not even tangential evidence. (And it would also be assuming that the Austrian company is even paying attention to what's going on over here, or paying attention to FCB's ambitions.) You're staring with a situation that you can't have some confidence is true; basically, going through something closer to Wild Mass Guessing. I'm fine with making assumptions while arguing points. But any assumption I make has to be backed with some fact(s) to make it at least an educated guess. For example, it's probably safe to assume that LAFC and VWFC aren't the only MLS teams starting to float the idea of starting an NWSL side. But as to which MLS clubs could be doing so? Very, very hard to say. It's probably safer to assume clubs that have given lip service to WoSo already in the past are more likely to be showing interest now than clubs that haven't - and the two NY clubs are in the latter category, I would say. There hasn't been any news at all out of NJ or NY to suggest that the staus quo in either camp has changed since the previous negotiations. Past is precedent.
Utah Royals home opener update. RSL communications VP (I believe is his position). Trey Fitzgerald tweeted out today that the Royals are “closing in on 15k” tickets sold to the first game. Advertising I’ve noticed is getting a bit more visible. Really hoping they can get to 20k by the 14th. Still have 1 more week.
I am not sure the sell-out is 20K for this game. It may be less because the endline sections 8-12 are where the stage is put up for the postgame concert.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article...h-Royals-FC-as-its-home-debut-draws-near.html Sellout! That sounds great. Especially with standing room being offered next. =-) Interesting to see the season ticket sales estimate back down to 5k, though... I wondering if the Portland article just got it wrong? I'm more inclined to trust a local source....
Just came here to post about the sell out. Nice job beating me to it. I’m pretty pumped up for this one on Saturday. Weather should be cool but nice.
#URFC Notes for a Thursday: -Saturday’s home opener sells 18,000 tickets. Seats had to be made unavailable for concert stage, but #RioT is sold out. SRO tickets have been made available.
Bad weather doesn't help as Chicago gets sub-2.4k today Carolina doesn't have much of an excuse as they barely breach 3k
My question from page 1 of this thread stands: Of course the big elephant of Utah changed the landscape quite a lot, but I don't think we can whistle and pretend nothing happened, should we discover that league numbers in general increased because of Utah, but actually all other clubs dropped down.
No Thorns season attendance 2017. 17,768 2016 16,945 2015 15,639 2014 13,362 2013 13,320 Opening day 2018. 16,466. (Rain, 52°F). Orlando 2017. 16,145 ( sunny, 52°F) Orlando 2016. 16,073 ( sunny, 76°F) Orlando 2015 13,386 ( cloudy 52°F) Boston ( Spring break for HS) 2014 14,124 ( rain, 52°F) KCFC 2013 16,479 ( cloudy, 51°—- high of year - against Reign. first home game ever) For reference, 52°F = 11°C
Ok, I should have expressed my doubt in a different way, because it's obvious Portland is a case on its own as well as Utah is. And anyway I didn't mean to adfirm that all other clubs are dropping down: you've cut my quote in half, removing the conditional clause, but what I actually meant was: if at the end of the season the overall attendence were higher than 2017, but this fact were actually due to Utah Royals entering into the equation and at the same time 5-6 clubs were lower than previous season, what would we make of that? Would we consider it ok or would we be worried? It was an "if": what if Utah and Portland would save the day, but actually most other franchises would be going down? Would it a depict an healthy league? The target is just growing general numbers or having a balanced and well-spread growth? Just question from me, no anwsers, not even implied.
Well, I think there were actually (seeing with my own eyes) many less than 500 fans in the seats at CRS last night. That 2.4k number must represent ticket sales perhaps for the game. Weather related of course. Unless there were a couple thousand fans in the suites up above that I could not see.
Wording confusion aside, I think the only clubs we should be really worried about in terms of overall drops are NC and NJ. NC is really hitting a sophomore slump, now averaging under 4k for the year, which is a 10% dropoff from last year. NJ just doesn't want to drop any because they're so low to begin with, plus had a banner year (by their standards) last year with no attendance below 2k at all. The Reign and Thorns are also under-drawing versus last year, but both have only had 1 game thus far (and no one is worried about the Thorns) Also, I missed seeing the worry in your earlier post, but your original impression about a general slow decrease in attendance is just wrong. Yes, there was a drop in the average from 2016 to 2017, but that was probably expected going from a tournament year to a non-tournament year. As for each team's year-to-year, it's almost consistently increases across the board: BOS: increased every year from 13 to 16 before suffering a drop in 17 CHI: highest attendance was 15, but increase every year ignoring that FCKC: increase every year 14 to 16; 13 was inaugural (14 was sophomore slump) and 17 was new (bad) owner HOU: one of the two teams I mentioned earlier in the thread to be worried about, as they had an odd sophomore peak and went down the next two years, but seem to be holding steady now at slightly above 17's average NJ: nearly identical 13&14, then increase every year 14 to 17 ORL: had a big sophomore slump last year, but considering the had a one-off NWSL record attendance in their freshman season, that was entirely expected POR: as stated above, increase every year SEA: increase every year from 13 to 16 before suffering a drop in 17 WAS: The other one of the two teams I mentioned earlier in the thread to be worried about, as they've been going down from 15 to 17, but are currently doing much better than they did last year WNY: this was a bad case but is now not a worry
We shouldn't even be discussing attendance for the Red Stars from last night. It was horrible conditions. I doubt there was any walk-up ticket sales. Even some die-hard season ticket holders didn't make. Many of Local 134 weren't there who are always there. Heck, the Cubs cancelled their game at Wrigley yesterday and that's before the weather got really bad. So yeah, these were tickets already sold and no walk-ups. Red Stars depend on walk-ups for every game.
This was only one game. Opening day for Utah. Let's see how Utah does the rest of the season. Remember a couple of years ago when Orlando sold out their stadium for opening day? And now they barely get 4,000? Before we claim Utah changed the landscape let's see what they do in the middle of summer, especially when the USWNT players aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for them to do great but we are so eager to show how the MLS owned teams are bringing up the standards and/or attendance when I don't see that yet, other than Portland. Houston hasn't been doing much better since their opening day a couple of years ago. As of right now only Portland is the ONLY one who has changed the landscape.
To be fair to Utah, having over 5k of ticket sales is miles away better than any team except Portland. So, yeah, even if the opening day is an outlier like it was for Orlando, it's still a noticeable shift in the landscape. And don't even talk about standards - Utah is better than even Portland when it's come to sponsorships, local TV, and player amenities. And to be fair to all MLS-owned teams, there has yet to be a single instance at all in NWSL's history thus far of a season when an independent team outdrew an MLS-owned team. They are noticeably bringing up the average, even without Portland included. (And of note: the USL-owned team drew between the MLS-owned teams and the independent teams last year. So the stratification thus far holds strong.) Also, Orlando has never drawn below 4k. In fact, they only drew below 5k once last year and never in 2016. Don't go throwing around false information.
But shouldn't we be "expecting" more from the MLS owned teams? Shouldn't Orlando Pride be drawing 10,000 at least, if their men are drawing 20,000? I know many here are hoping MLS takes over the league and that would solve all problems. I am a fan of a Chicago team that has a committed independent owner. First of all, I doubt the Fire would be interested in owning the Red Stars, second even if they did, I doubt it would change the landscape much as the Fire can barely draw 14,000 per game themselves. I like my independent owner. He is in it for the right reasons. CRS have a core of extremely dedicated fans. I want my team to stay in Chicago. Stop shoving that MLS-owned garbage down my throat (not pointing fingers at you STT, but in general). I'm not buying it right now.
You're putting words into people's mouths. blisset made one comment about Utah (which, yes, could have been an overstatement) and you went into an anti-MLS rant that was not factually correct. And all I did was point out a few spots you were short-changing the progress that's been made. Could the progress be more? Of course. I agree HOU and ORL could and should be doing better at the gate. And HOU's management+coaching for several years wasn't great and may or may not be better this year. But if you're pretending progress isn't there, that's bad too. That's all I was trying to say.
No I'm not. All I said is let's wait until the full season develops before we say that Utah has changed the landscape. It's only one game. We have seen this in Orlando and Houston where the first game is sold out then we drop down to reality after a few weeks. That's all I'm saying. I have seen several Pride games over the last two years because I go to Orlando often and not just when they play the Red Stars. What's not factually correct? That attendance in Orlando and Houston dropped in average after their opening day? I'm just stating my perception. And I'll let you know that I am a Fire fan just as much as I am a Red Stars fan maybe even more so. So I am NOT anti-MLS. I just see the reality on the ground. At least in my own city. My statement about the "shoving the MLS garbage", was my rant to all the posters who keep commenting on how it would be great if MLS teams owned all the NWSL teams. I disagree. Tired of hearing it. And BTW, blisset, I love your comments. Keep commenting.
The main things I saw in your post were the claim about Orlando how "now they barely getting 4,000" and the claim that only Portland had changed the landscape. The latter is definitely more subjective than the former, but I think the fact that we're even talking about how the MLS-backed team "should be expecting more" is a sign of a changed landscape - not to mention all of the other raised standards that aren't just attendance (e.g. facilities, salaries, other player benefits, etc.) that have come from the inclusion of more and more MLS-backed teams. (And I apologize for saying anti-MLS instead of anti-MLS-backed - that was definitely me not being careful enough earlier.) The changes may be more incremental than monumental, but it's been the MLS-backed teams driving them. And certainly one thing that Utah has done that is monumental in the WoSo landscape is that they've one-upped Portland on player benefits and (I think) sponsorships. They've also one-upped everyone except Portland on season tickets, so that's nothing to sniff at either. Of course they probably won't get 19k against this season (unless maybe the final home match has playoff implications) but from what I know of season-tickets-vs-walk-ups from other teams, 10k average seems entirely reasonable, and even that would be pretty seismic in the WoSo landscape. (Side note: Neither Houston nor Orlando have never sold out a game, at least not in the sense of hitting their stadium's capacity. Houston opened up more than the lower bowl for their first game, but they've had one or two other attendances even more than their inaugural match - maybe three? IDK, I'd have to dig a bit to see. And Camping World Stadium holds around 60k, though of course I'm being nit-picky here since the NWSL attendance record is nothing to sniff at.) Progress, yes, but again it's incremental, and for the independent teams I think it's more following than leading - and not as much as what the non-independent teams have done. CHI and NJ in particular were great about a slow but steady increase in attendance through the years (as I said in a previous post) and CHI's move to TP was very good for them IMO. Having independent owners is great because the league needs the diversity. It's just hard to find independent owners with the capital to keep up with the standards that MLS-backed teams (usually) bring. The current crop of independent owners seems to be doing well so far, though, so that's good.
Thanks, I'll keep doing, although my point of view is necessarily quite ill-informed, since I don't even live in USA, so I just extrapolate from the few data available to me. But it's really like guessing a dinosaur from one tooth, one toe-nail and the fragment of a scapula, so you all have to be patient with me, guys. Also, the last thing I wanted was raising a III World War with my observation, that didn't have any particular intent or hidden agenda. You know, I am probably closer to your point of view about the current subject, both because my European mindset really wants teams and franchises to always stay in the same place and because I like the amateur-side of women's football and I always put individuals ahead of corporate-culture. At the same time, I am good friend with SiberianThunderT also, and it seems to me that, even if he maybe misunderstod or misread some of your statements, he did that in good faith and in a civil way. Please, I don't like watching friends dispute.
Don't worry about SiberianThunderT and I. We know each other. We've watched games together. Just banter between us and I am now getting to be a "grumpy old man" who now finds himself doing the "back in my day" preaching.