http://www.foxsportsworld.com/content/view?contentId=2417824 BY SEAN D. WHEELOCK FOX Sports World May. 20, 2004 1:22 p.m. MLS is going to add two expansion clubs next season, but has yet to decide where they will be located. Previously, I've advocated for certain cities to join MLS. Over the next few months, I'm going to further explore the future of MLS expansion, and speak with some of the key individuals involved in the process. I chose to begin this series by interviewing Chris Economides, vice president, general manager, and part owner of the A-League's Rochester Raging Rhinos, because above all other candidates to join MLS, they are the best prepared to have a team on the pitch next April. I chose to begin this series by interviewing Chris Economides, vice president, general manager, and part owner of the A-League's Rochester Raging Rhinos, because above all other candidates to join MLS, they are the best prepared to have a team on the pitch next April.
You know what I will like the most when Rochester joins MLS? Green will be back!!! (You know, since the Rapids ditched their green unis for the Italian look.) About the article, though... I'm glad the Rhinos' owner is having second thoughts about FieldTurf. You just keep having those second thoughts, buddy. We want grass. You hear me? Grass! Sounds like he's pretty optimistic for next year...
Rhinos await geology report (May 21, 2004) ? The Rochester Rhinos are reconsidering how deep they?ll be able to dig for a downtown soccer stadium. Because of issues over the soil?s stability and where the water table is, the Rhinos are waiting for a geological report on how much of the stadium can be built below ground level, said Frank DuRoss, the team?s majority owner. The $22 million stadium was to be built as far as 18 feet below ground, creating a bowl-shaped facility. DuRoss said it was unclear whether stadium designs or the price tag would be affected. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/0521story010942_news.shtml
I want Rochester in MLS, bad. I think Wheelock's article is great. It is nice to hear what the team thinks about their prospects. I'm thinking of writing a few letters to MLS officials about MLS moving to Rochester. Has anyone on the boards here done that? I'll take some of Economides' quotes and try to convince them. I bet it will work. Letter to be posted later here so you all can copy.
Ok Rochester, start your emailing engines. Here is a letter I just put together. Email it to: feedback@mlsnet.com. You can change the info specific to me to your case. Dear Commissioner Garber, I am a huge MLS fan. I live in Denver, Colorado and support the Rapids. I’m a season ticket holder and I want to put in my two cents on expansion. I believe one of your new 2005 teams must be the Rochester Raging Rhinos. Let me take you through my reasoning: 1. The team exists, they have their uniforms, they have an organization, and they have players. Most importantly, they have fans! There are already more season ticket holders then here in Denver. Your new franchise marketing costs will be lower than in a city without a franchise. 2. The owners want to be in MLS. Sean Wheelock has an article on foxsportsworld.com interviewing one of the owners, Chris Economides. He states there is a strong ownership group of three men who want to take the club to the next level. Don’t move to a city where this is in question. The desire to win and get better is key in a club. 3. A soccer specific stadium is under construction. The expansion into Rochester comes with a stadium you are having a tough time building around the country. The building has already started. All of your other markets are only in the planning phases as far as I know. They might be even further away from planning. I don’t see any reason not to expand to Rochester in 2005. I do not think there are any better candidates, not even Chivas. If Chivas goes to Chicago, you can have two new Eastern Conference foes and expand the Western later. If Chivas goes to LA, you have a nice split right off the bat. I have heard rumors about a problem with the $10 million expansion fee in Rochester. In my humble opinion I believe MLS should find a way to work through this for Rochester. As I said earlier your costs of moving to Rochester will be lower because of the existing fans. In addition you are more assured of a successful expansion. You risks are lower and your reward is greater. If this is in fact a stumbling point, please get past it. The league will look better in Rochester. Please Commissioner, don’t make a mistake where people will question MLS expansion. If you go to Salt Lake City there will be so much work to just get 3,000 people at games. In Rochester you will be able to draw over 10,000 per game, right off the bat. Make the MLS fans excited about expansion, go to Rochester. Sincerely,
Dear Bonji, Thank you for your input and concern . Rochester is indeed very attractive and we really try to work with them . here is an outline of the problems we encounter. Their new stadium is under MLS capacity min req is 20 k, and we want our teams to play on natural grass, we have clearly expressed this desire and they not acting on it. But the biggest major concern here is really " How will they contribute to MLS finances when we need a few million each year to survive" ? Our losses are covered by the investors, each has to put in their share, can we really rely and base our future with them ? we need long term commitment and dedication. MLS have gone thru an owner who did not have the necessary funds to contribute , we do not want a similar situation,
So do you actually work for MLS? If so, thanks for the response. If not, you have some good insight. Obviously I was unaware of the problems you brought up since I am not a Rochester/MLS insider, except for the field turf one. I really believe the pros in Rochester outweigh the cons. As in all business decisions you need to weigh both and assess risk. I've got to say a few things about each of the things you brought up just in case you do work for MLS. "Their new stadium is under MLS capacity min req is 20 k" It is my understanding that the stadium has multiple phases allowing it to increase to over 20k. Let them play in a smaller stadium for the short term. It will be a better situation than playing in a place way too big. Since they are the primary tenant and I assume owners they will get control of all the revenue and be able to invest in the team, league and capacity increases. Wouldn't you rather have the club sell out every week as opposed to giving away free tickets hoping to make some money once the people enter the gates? When the other expansion candidates don't have SSS to play in, this issue erases itself IMO. "we want our teams to play on natural grass" From what I hear Field Turf is not too bad to play soccer on. It has a higher install cost but much lower maintainence costs. In Rochester I don't imagine there are water issues as in Colorado, but when I was looking into building a soccer complex Field Turf was very attractive. In addition, it is allowed by FIFA and I believe some of the Nordic leagues have it in place, maybe in Belgium. Again, I wouldn't put this as a deal breaker for Rochester. "How will they contribute to MLS finances when we need a few million each year to survive?" This is where MLS will need to be most creative. If the team is profitable right out of the gates by selling out their home field, maybe the other owners need to say it is ok for them to continue to pay losses while Rochester shares some of their profits with the other owners. I'm sure a deal can be worked out. After reading the interview with one of the potential owners in Rochester it became clear to me why Rochester is the best expansion candidate, they have fans. They already out sell season tickets as compared to other MLS teams. As I understand it season tickets are an important metric in the league. They're already performing there. I imagine a MLS franchise will be able to sell even more. I obviously don't work for the league or a club so I don't know all the ins and outs of the business. But if Rochester can outsell current MLS teams, has a dedicated ownership group which wants to win and has a SSS under construction, how can you pass them up? They are ready to step into MLS with lower start up costs than any other city. Their stadium might be too small but they will sell it out, I'm sure ensuring positive cash flow. They don't have to spend a lot of money on marketing as I'm sure a team in Salt Lake City would. Take a look at the entire picture. I'm sure the other owners will want to go to a soccer city as opposed to an untested market. The risk is lower in Rochester and I'm sure businessmen will be able to overcome the issues if they see that.
I like Rochester. They have a team with great support. They have a soccer history with the Lancers and the Rhinos have carved themselves a little niche of soccer lore with winning the USO Cup. Is Rochester a large enough TV market? I don't think they're a top 40 market. MLS HAS to have a money making TV deal by 2010. Not like the current NBC NHL deal either. 10K fannies per match is ok, can it grow to 25K in the next 10 years? MLS wil HAVE to get 20K per match by 2015. Teams will have to avg. 90% capacity in ther SSS for growth and to be able to afford the players. I would think that each MLS squad will have at least 6 players earning 7 figures. Are the pockets of the current Rochester Owners deep enough to be able to pay for MLS' losing situations, namely Metrostars and San Jo? None of this crap where since the Rhinos make money they shouldn't have to pay. This is single entity. That's why Philly and Houston aren't in yet.
Sorry to burst your bubble (actually, no I'm not), but last season San Jo lost the least amount of money of any AEG-owned team except LA (a team with its own soccer-specific stadium), though that could be because SJ's advertising/marketing/promotion budget is three times less than the other AEG teams'. Still, the Metros and DC still cost more to run than SJ - as a matter of fact, so does LA, though LA makes up for it by collecting all of its stadium revenues themselves. Yet another reason why each and every MLS team eventually needs its own soccer-specific stadium. Kudos for potentially MLS-bound Rochester in that regard. -G
Oops, I forgot to mention Chicago. Thanks Flashman! And yes, Chicago loses more money than SJ as well. -G
Fixed. My guess is Chicago's current stadium situation will not affect the league's bottom line as much as San Jose's.
That may or may not be true (depending on how the Fire's lease is with Soldier Field), but that still doesn't change the fact that the Earthquakes cost less to run than the Metros and DC. As far as the bottom line goes, San Jose is not (or at least shouldn't be) AEG's biggest worry. -G
OK. They're third on my list, and a big worry. A stadium solution for each of these teams (MET,DC,SJ) would go a long way to healing MLS's financial worries.
(What, did you disable images in this forum?) Anyway, there's no way on Earth the NFL would put an expansion team in Green Bay, Wisconsin if it didn't have one there since the 1920's.
Kinda sorta. But the country isn't. And I wasn't saying anything about Rochester, I'm all in favor of that.
What MLS team is currently averaging 25K/game? None. Who will be in 2015? Who knows. I don't know if that is some kind of magic MLS number but if they are ok with stadiums that hold 20K, then some teams will not have that large an attendance average. Who knows where MLS salaries are going. If the league keeps up the current salary cap advancement rate, the entire team won't be over $3 Million in 10 years.
I understand you aren't against Rochester's bid. I was just making note that MLS is still in it's early years and perhaps there is room for a smaller market team to grow into one of the cornerstones of the league. Next Issue: The problem with the "TV deal is necessary" argument is the fact that, that it is also an apples and oranges situation. MLS will never be a Basketball, Hockey, Baseball or American Football league. It will grow in a different way than those sports grew. NASCAR didn't grow in the same way. MLS doesn't have to either. I think the uniqueness of offering games live on the web is part of how this league has to grow. If MLS can figure out how to make billions using the internet and other unique outlets, I'd rather see that than a carbon copy of every other sports league. Rochester's greatest attributes are regional brand recognition (national recognition amongst die hard fans) and fan support. Rochester will have a ten year head start over any other team that joins MLS at the same time.
And I agree. But, without expounding on his reply, NYR Metros just said "Green Bay," which I took to mean that since a small market like Green Bay was good enough for the NFL, it should be good enough for MLS. Well, Rochester should be good for MLS regardless because of the things they bring to the table, whether or not a grandfathered in small town in the country's most popular sports league has anything whatsoever to do with it by way of comparison. Rochester may be MLS' Green Bay and that's fine. But my point stands that a league like the NFL wouldn't look twice at Green Bay today if it hadn't had a team there for the last 80+ years. And Garber addressed your point about TV: "Now, again, (Rochester is) not a market that is going to help us as much as we need help in some of the large cities that we hope to be in from a television perspective, but we need more people supporting the game of soccer."
I think the point can even go further - Green Bay wouldn't still be in the NFL if not for outrageously positive tradition and loyalty built in the 60s and the fact that the town owns the team. An owner, without perfect attendance, would have sought out "greener" pastures long ago. If Rochester's A-League fan support translates to a sold-out 17,500 seat stadium, they could wind up being a perfect analogy to Green Bay, only larger.
While we discusing attendance and how teams draw revenue, i must mention that most World teams who actualy make money get paid very well by the broadcasting companies. Most of those teams do not rely on attendance numbers or if they did they would not be in business . TV ratings are a very important factor for the survival of MLS, even more then attendace.
according to don garber, rochester is a strong candidate for an expansion team in 2006. they will not get one in 2005