I'm not making either of those points. My entire point is that you can't use Toronto as an example of "if you build it they will come" because Toronto's fan base was already there. There just wasn't enough seats for them to fit into the stadium. That is a situation that is relatively unique to Toronto.
Yes, there was pent-up demand for tickets that wasn't realized until the stadium expanded. But other metrics like TV ratings grew significantly as well. Plus revenue grew 30% even though stadium capacity only grew by 20%, whereas renewal and show rates also increased. I'd argue the across-the-board growth was not just a result of stadium expansion, but investing in the roster and producing a winner. Consider this... In 2013, Toronto's total payroll was just $3.7 million. The very next year, they signed 3 new DPs, including Michael Bradley, and it jumped to $15 million. In 2015, they signed Jose Altidore and Sebastian Giovinco and the payroll has been north of $20 million ever since. Sure enough, they made the MLS Cup final in 2016 and won it in 2017 and have seen a big jump in all relevant "business metrics." Was that just because they added seats, or also because they invested in the roster?
Another interesting thing about TFC's relevance it Toronto: BMO Field could have a distinctly different look for CFL games in 2018. New top boss Bill Manning told the Toronto Sun this week he’s considering tarping off the upper deck at BMO to consolidate Toronto Argonauts crowds into the lower bowl. “We’re going to do what soccer teams do (in football stadiums), when they tarp off the upper decks,” Manning said. “We’re going to do the same thing. It’s going to be a lower bowl. Let’s fill the lower bowl first and then worry about filling the upper deck”
I think the counter argument is if a Colorado (no offense) did the same thing they might not see the same return on investment. They might, but the risk may be higher than in a Toronto. Imagine the Rapids spend an extra $15 million in 2018 and win the cup and state they brought in estimated $5 million more in revenue. So net they had a $12 million worse year than not going all out. It could work, but many clubs need signs before taking the leap. Atlanta had a massive waiting list before they played making ownership bold and a positive cycle of fan support and player signing / spending has emerged. If Atlanta had ~1,000 season ticket holders not sure how ownership there would have reacted.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that not all situations are the same and teams/clubs will manage their finances according to their own situations.....that is radical thinking and I think you need evidence before suggesting it is so
I'd also add, that just adding $XX million to the payroll isn't going to guarantee an improvement in results. As I noted earlier, TFC has always been one of the top spenders in the league, they just spent that money on players that weren't particularly good and/or surrounded them with subpar players. TFC's problem has never been that they weren't spending money, it was that they weren't spending that money wisely. Now that they've spent that money wisely, it is the improvement in play that is allowing them to claw back the fans they lost in the near decade of incompetence.
Seems to me that TFC's big spending is a recent development (since 2014) and the drastically improved results quickly followed. 2013: I believe TFC had only 1 DP their entire club existence up to this point, even though 2 were allowed since 2010 and 3 since 2012. Total payroll as of 2013, still with just 1 DP, was just $3.68 million. 2014: TFC filled all 3 DP slots and payroll jumped to $15 million, leading MLS. 2015: TFC traded-up at 2 of their 3 DP slots and payroll grew even further to $20 million+, again leading MLS. Sure enough, they made the MLS Cup final in 2016 and won it in 2017 with the best season in MLS history, and their financial business metrics significantly improved across the board. Is that really just coincidence or cause-and-effect? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that spending big is the ONLY way to succeed, nor is it a guarantee of success. The Houston Atros just won the World Series, defeating teams with much bigger payrolls like the Dodgers and Yankees. And I suspect some MLS teams will do the same by being very good at building through their academies and reserve squads. So as others have suggested, different clubs can and should have different strategies based on their financial status and markets. That said, it's ultimately good for MLS when big investments and bold moves are rewarded, as I believe has been the case with Toronto. It inspires others to do the same which helps transform the league from one that is all about controlling costs to one that is about investing, growing, and continually raising the bar.
Not quite, these are the pre-2013 DPs that played for TFC: Julian de Guzman 2009-12 Mista 2010 Torsten Frings 2010-11 Eric Hassili 2012 Danny Koevermans 2011-13
I'm not disagreeing that spending has been a big part of TFC's rise nor with your premise that the league as a whole is in a position to switch from cost control to growth through spending. That said, as much as TFC's expensive DPs have been a huge boon for them, I'd argue it has been TFC's Bezbatchenko-era ability to find good players by all sorts of different means that has put them on top. That is, spending alone would have put them in the same strata as other top teams but it has been their ability to find great players in addition to their DPs that made them the highest points total / first domestic treble team ever.
anyone know the ST count for columbus for the coming season? if they are the same or less than 2017, then all the anger and tears about them moving to austin are from the crocodile syndrome- the team and its supporters have to show immediately the ability to move closer to a 20 000 average attendance for 2018
Columbus doesn't release ST numbers. I think Keith Naas on twitter tried to figure it out based on vague statements from the FO.
This. Everyone thinks KSE could spend that kind of money (and they could) but where are they going to get a revenue increase if they do? You add maybe 2K to the Dick each game (2500 x 17 games x ~$25 ticket = ~$1M). no parking (parking is free at the Dick), merchandising of course, but after that you need to raise ticket prices. 17.5K x 17 games is about 300K tickets a season so to make back the other $13 million each ticket has to go up about $5. And that's just to break even on a $15 million player. I mean yeah, this is rough back of the envelope calculations and there's a bunch more stuff that goes into it (season ticket sales, sponsorship, etc) but its a good example of why economically its hard for a team like the Rapids to justify a $15 million signing unless they know (as they did with Howard/Transamerica) they have a sponsor or somebody lined up to cover the cost.
You're looking at different eras in DPs, when MLS teams were spending $1m-$3m for DPs, and generally got them in the summer. From 2007-2009, MLS teams were allowed 1 DP, but could trade for a slot (not many teams did). Toronto didn't have a DP in 2007, 2008, and most of 2009. Starting in 2010, teams were allowed 2 DPs, but could buy a 3rd spot, which Toronto bought in the 2011 season. 2009 - de Guzman (half the season) 2010 - de Guzman, Mista (half the season) 2011 - de Guzman, Koevermans (half the season), Frings (half the season) 2012 - de Guzman (half the season), Koevermans, Frings, Hassli (Half the season) 2013 - Koevermans, Laba 2014 - Gilberto, Bradley, Defoe 2015+ - Bradley, Giovinco, Altidore Another thing to consider is that in 2009, 2010, and start of 2011, Toronto also had de Rosario, who was making above league max salary, but Toronto was buying it down with GAM.
I meant to say 1 DP at a time, meaning they weren't even maximizing what the rules would allow, yet shortly thereafter, they were setting an entirely new standard for the league. Am I right that they had only 1 DP at a time, when 2-3 were allowed, and it wasn't until 2014 that it changed? I could be wrong about that, but what seems pretty clear is how the overall payroll spiked considerably in 2014 and the glory years quickly followed. I'll concede that until we (ATL) got our own MLS team, I didn't pay much attention to the business side of it. I just watched whatever game was on TV without knowing whose payroll was bigger.
Read my post one above yours. Another thing for you to understand is that even when Toronto didn't have a full allotment of DPs, they were above the league average.
It's likely to be lower than in 2017. Team didn't announce how many people pulled the plug on their season tickets when they reopened the window for cancellation. If the team continues it's anti-marketing strategy to drive down attendance, they'll likely be successful at that. If the team is sold to local ownership, of course things would pick up quickly.
It's even worse than that. 15 mil over 300K tickets sold is $50 each. And don't visiting teams get a cut of the ticket sales?
I think we're straying quite a bit from the original point. TOareaFan shared these stats about TFC... Season ticket number for TFC to be 24,500 looking to expand BMO by 5k "show rate" last year was 84% (up from 72% in 2015) renewal rate 98.5% average ticket price of $45 means nearly $1.2 million/game in ticket sales TFC revenue is up 30% since 2015 TV viewership is up almost 200% I noted that it's good for MLS that a big risk in the form of a 6X increase in payroll spending ($3.7 million in 2013 compared to $22 million in 2017) has been rewarded both on the pitch and in factors that affect revenue. Examples of big investments being rewarded will inspire others to do the same and transform MLS from a league that was previously focused on controlling costs to one that invests for growth.
And my point remains that TFC is a unique case in that they already had the fanbase, it was just limited by the size of their stadium and almost a decade of ineptitude had pushed fans away. As an example of what I’m talking about, Portland is adding another 5k seats to their stadium next season. They are going to fill those seats regardless of them increasing their payroll or not. They could add another 10k-15k to their stadium and still fill the stadium without spending an extra penny on their payroll. All that would be required is for them to remain competitive. You’re also pointing at a single aspect of what changed at TFC and giving it credit for their turn around.. Was bringing in Giovinco, Bradley, and Altidore a factor in their improvement? Of course, but they also went from having a revolving door of crap head coaches to striking gold with Greg Vanney, they also went from having one of the league’s worst defenses to having one of, if not the, best defense in the league. The big change at TFC wasn't just that they threw a pile of money at three offensive players, they had an entire culture shift when they brought in Tim Leiweke and it was that culture shift the improved the entire club.
I shared season tickets with a friend the first two years of the Sounders in MLS. Although skeptical, I became confident that Seattle would be more than a short term thing when I realized how much fun those games were to attend in person. Hopefully Atlanta proves they have the same to offer their fans— a great entertainment experience