Please help us Save The Crew

Done. As an individual that enjoyed the Thrashers I fully appreciate the sting of losing a team. Solidarity, brother. Hope this all works out in your favor

 

A couple of honest questions:

Your attendance is terrible. Cincinnati attendance is outstanding and they are USL. There is not room for two MLS teams that close together. Why do you deserve a team instead of them?

While I don't personally know as I haven't been there, apparently your stadium is not in a very good location and your city and it's voters are not willing to relocate to a better one. Again logic would dictate that since you guys aren't willing to move to a better location and your attendance is poor, you don't deserve to be saved.

Prove me wrong and I'd be glad to support.

I want to see MLS succeed in all locations. High attendance, great stadiums in downtown locations, great young talent like we've done in ATL rather than being a retirement league, etc. I've yet to see a reason why you guys deserve to be saved when a neighboring city is crushing your attendance numbers and their city seems to be on board with the team.

The way MLS has handled this and apparently lied to San Antonio about Austin is very poor and looks horrible on them but from everything I see you guys don't deserve to be saved. Atlanta residents went through their own struggle with this when Cobb and the Braves secretly moved the team without anyone's knowledge.

Not poking fun and congrats on beating us and doing well in playoffs! Just looking for an honest reason why you or any other Crew can explain how you guys deserve to keep a team when Cincy has put in such a great bid.

 

The simple answer is the team isn't struggling both attendance wise or business wise. They have never had the worst attendance in the league in over 20 years. I encourage you to read this article to answer your questions:
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/11/8/16618962/columbus-crew-relocation-austin-financial-records

Also, as to Cincy, there are a couple of things to say:
1. They are playing on a college campus and have very cheap tickets for students (I want to say $5 but I'm not 100% certain of that). Easy to draw fans that way, don't think it would continue if they move up to MLS.
2. They are actually trying to market the team, unlike Precourt
3. There is room in MLS for both.

 

So if you're not in last place in attendance that mean's you're doing well? Can't say I disagree with anything in the article. Is the poor location part of the poor attendance numbers?

Saying there is room for both Cincy and Columbus in MLS limits your personal credibility to zero. That will never happen. Will be interesting to see how the San Antonio lawsuit plays out and what if anything comes out in discovery.

 

I think you are wrong in that their can't be a team in Columbus and Cincinnati. The NFL and MLB have teams in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Columbus isn't Cleveland, but isn't far from there, plus it is sports crazed. One thing you have to remember is that Ohio is one of the high populated states so it can definitely support multiple teams.

Note: This isn't a post in favor keeping the team in Columbus. I think it was tragic that Columbus couldn't get more than 14K (I think) for a playoff game. That isn't the way to get the attention of the country to try and keep a team there.

 

Done!

 

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/201...san-antonio-to-send-threatening-letter-to-mls

Quality article on the situation. If San Antonio's allegations are true then MLS is going to look awful.

And ya, we are quite blessed to have Uncle Arthur. Not just for our sports but the city as whole. He does a ton of philanthropy work and contributes a ton to the arts of the city.

 

No idea about Houston or their problems with attendance but FC Dallas should be called FC Frisco. It's almost an hour north of downtown Dallas. When it was first built, there was nothing but farm land around there. A lot more development closer to there now but that is definitely still a huge part of their attendance problems.

 

On one hand, the "business metrics" aren't good and that matters. It's not just the attendance that is lacking. The Crew don't have much in the way of local corporate sponsorship, they have the lowest jersey sponsorship in the league, the lowest overall team valuation according to Forbes, and the least valuable stadium. Anthony Precourt paid just $60 million for both the team and stadium in 2013, at a time when start-up costs for expansion teams were at least $250 million with expansion fees and a new stadium combined. Meanwhile, Taylor Twellman claims the next closest bid was only around $25 million. That kinda says it all.

Meanwhile, MLS is at a critical stage of its growth and needs thriving clubs in thriving markets to maximize the value of the next TV deal and begin to really increase the investments in payroll, facilities, and academies that will be necessary to bring MLS to global legitimacy. So, from a pure business perspective, it's no different than the team relocations we've seen in every other professional American sports league.

That said, without Columbus, there would be no Atlanta. The original clubs built the most successful and lasting first division soccer league our country has every seen and we wouldn't exist without them. But they are now saddled with trying to overcome perceptions of MLS that were created 22 years ago, when the product wasn't nearly as good as it is now. Most of the original 10 franchises are struggling by comparison to the clubs that came into the league later, once it was already stable and had some degree of credibility. Miami lost their team, San Jose moved to Houston before getting a new team, and several other early clubs aren't doing all that much better than Columbus, including Colorado, Dallas, Chicago, New England, and even DC (although they do have a new stadium coming next year).

More importantly, the owner is more important than the market. Just look how the Braves did under Ted Turner compared to now, or how the Falcons (and now AUFC) have done under Arthur Blank compared to prior owners. Same goes for the lousy ownership groups we had for the Hawks and Thrashers. With a local, committed owner, Columbus might do a lot better also. Consider the turnaround in Kansas City. They struggled mightily until they went through an ownership change and re-branding. Now they are a model franchise with a long waiting list for season tickets. Meanwhile, the Green Bay Packers are in the smallest market in the NFL, yet have one of the league's strongest brands and most loyal followings. Point being, did the market really fail or did the owner fail? How much more successful could Columbus be with just a little marketing?

Finally, the sense of permanency and connection that a club has with its fans is one of the things that sets soccer apart from every other professional sport in this country. It's a lot more like college sports in that regard and that's one of the primary reasons many of us like it so much. If we just let MLS become another mercenary league like the NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL, it loses a lot of its appeal. We've only had Atlanta United for one year, and I already care more about this club than any professional team I've ever followed. Why? Because it feels like they are really MY team. We don't want MLS to ever lose that. Can you imagine a team like Manchester United or Liverpool moving to London simply because it was a better market? How about the Ohio State Buckeyes moving to Texas because it offered better "business metrics?"

 

I'm wondering why that's the case. It would seem that the newer clubs would be the ones to suffer. Were newer clubs allowed to enter under rules that might give them an advantage?

That, to me, is a tough call. I'm no baseball aficionado, but I do know this: Ted owned the Braves for 20 years, but it took him 15 to get 'em right. He's got more last-place finishes than first. He does have the ring, tho, and if you wanted to say he got the ball rolling, you'd be right. But the Braves have been better by the numbers in the 20 years since he sold than they were under him. I watched from the early 90s to the mid 2000s, when they finally broke my give a damn. It got to the point where I didn't need to care about the reg season because it wasn't even competitive --the Braves were straight killing folks-- and then I'd sit on front of the TV during the postseason scared to care because I knew it was all gonna come apart somewhere. And it always did, except for 1995.

The Falcons before Blank had to play Unitas' Colts (briefly), Montana's Niners, and two separate great Rams teams (the Fearsome Foursome and the Greatest Show on Turf) as division opponents. They moved to the NFC South (new ground, no existing rivalries) the same season Blank bought them, IIRC. That might have swayed his decision. They are better now than they were, but they've had lesser competition, certainly as individual players go.

At this point, the team would probably have to be sold to another local owner for <Dr. Dimento> Columbusoids and Columbusites </Dr. D>to part with their money.

Green Bay's been around for generations and has won a ton, early, middle and recently. Plus, it's Green Bay. The NFL is all they have.

This. Haven't cared like this since caring about my HS's football record.

 

Quoting myself to add to this. What a team in ATL has done for me is make me a fan of a league I used to bash mercilessly while not knowing anything about them. I held it against the league that there wasn't a team in Atlanta the whole time. I mean, it's your favorite sport, there's a league in your country but no team near you. That didn't encourage me to support the league- in fact, it made me mad. But I looked up one day last month, saw that it was October and I had no idea what the EPL or Liga table looked like. Didn't know what was going on in the Champions League. But I've gone out of my way to watch more soccer this year than any other year of my life. That's because I have a team now. And because I have a team, so do I have a league. The only matches I haven't seen are the ones that weren't available that matchday.

 

Totally agree. Having your own team is a game-changer. I used to watch a handful of MLS games, but I was never emotionally invested because we didn't have our own team. So, I was more passionate about watching Liverpool on Saturday or Sunday mornings (or whatever big EPL game was featured that week).

But from the moment I heard ATL was getting an expansion franchise, that has completely flipped. I'm ALL-IN with Atlanta United and MLS and care about it far more than EPL or any other professional American sport. Now that we have our own team, I find myself watching other MLS games that don't even involve Atlanta because it has spurred my interest in the league in general. I realize that the quality of play isn't on the same level as the top European leagues, but I don't care. College football isn't as good as the NFL, but I like it better because of the connection fans have to their teams. And it's not like Miguel Almiron, Joseph Martinez, Tito Villalba, and Brad Guzan are a bunch of scrubs. The quality of play is still legit, professional soccer.

Thus my sympathy for Columbus potentially losing their club. In other threads, I've argued the business side of that decision because that view is underrepresented on these forums. Everyone is so caught up in bashing the owner or MLS that they dismiss the financial realities. But I'd rather see an original club make a turnaround, like Kansas City did, than move to a new market.

 

I think the key issue is newer clubs joined a more popular and credible league, particularly in the post-David Beckham era when MLS suddenly became cool, whereas the original clubs are trying to market a product whose image was established back when the league was considered a joke to many. Ultimately, it's hard to re-brand a product and get a big spike in sales when you're marketing to the same consumers. So, Columbus have never been able to get over the 17-18K mark in attendance.

Point being, commitment matters. With Ted Turner and Arthur Blank, we've had deeply-committed, deep-pocketed, local ownership groups and that has led to the most successful eras we've seen in both wins and attendance for both the Braves and Falcons. By contrast, any time we've had an out-of-town corporate ownership group, the teams have suffered. Same market, yet entirely different results, largely due to the ownership.

I think Precourt has had a $75 million offer for 50% of the team (more than he paid in 2013 for the entire club), but has declined. Bottom line is he had his heart set on relocation from the moment he bought the team, thus the escape clause in the purchase agreement.

 

Although I have ran into the worst fans as Columbus fans (I have ran into many awesome Columbus fans too) ...I don’t think any team should be hard done like this. This isn’t Chivas USA who were an embarrassment to the league. If this can happen to Columbus, it can happen to anyone.

 

I would also hate to see one of the original clubs move. Without Columbus, there would be no Atlanta.

But we can't ignore the economics. Does Columbus have a market and business model that will support aggressive spending on designated players? Do they make enough at the gate to spend the discretionary TAM that will be made available?

Discretionary payroll spending is about to accelerate and clubs that can't generate enough revenue to keep pace are gong to be left behind. That's why they are looking at a new market.

 

Andrew Erickson‏ @AEricksonCD 17h17 hours ago
Ohio AG Mike DeWine statement: "Should ownership of the Columbus Crew initiate a move of the team without complying with Ohio law, I am prepared to take the necessary legal action under this law to protect the interests of the State of Ohio..." #CrewSCpic.twitter.com/noQhKZRG3Q

 

I don't think that law will hold up in court. At best, they can seek compensation for whatever public support was provided, but they won't be able to prevent a private business from moving out of their state (or a sale of that business to an out-of-state owner).

That said, legal and political issues like this can certainly slow the process. That, combined with potential complications on finding a suitable stadium site in Austin, could end up killing this move in the long-run.

Another potential consequence is this power-play will actually work against Cincinnati's bid. Will MLS want to add a 2nd team in a state where public support is needed for stadium infrastructure, yet politicians are threatening these kinds of actions? The political and business climate in a given state is a major consideration in expansion and this move therefore hurts Cincy.

 

Well I was going to ask that one of you AUFC supporters #SaveHelenaTheAtlantaDogWhoLovesTooMuch but right before posting I checked and she's already been adopted. So thank you Atlanta! Amidst all the turmoil here in Columbus, this makes me feel better.

Email adoptions@fultonanimalservices.com for more great dogs. Helena's story is at the link. For a feel good moment here is Helena while waiting to be adopted. (also the photo that forced me to do this)

https://tinyurl.com/yad8ob5g