I completely agree with you there. The poor weather, along with the poor PR (which RSL has always sucked at) and poor economy, were definitely the factors.
I still think a free friendly isn't a bad idea. And you're right, not the ONLY reason, but a VERY large contributor, along with the poor economy and poor PR.
This year i hope to see much better PR and advertisements/promotions to get people more interested and out to the games. To give the FO credit, they have been stepping it up lately (the end of last year and i hope at the beginning of this year). A free game each year at the Riot with another team would be great. Who's to say its not going to be good... It can only bring good things, and help spread the word. It never hurts...
It definitely would hurt RSL's pocketbook the day of the game. Plus, as others have said, it may hurt the perceived value of the product they are selling.
I see it hurting the pockets on gameday (but again, you rape people on concessions) but i dont get the "perceived value reduction" you and FM believe in. Its not a league game, its a friendly. I think its good PR personally, but who knows. You bring in a low quality team (but not entirely awful) and have a scrimmage out there. If NFL teams did this would they have to worry about poor attendance later? NBA? NHL?
The idea that a free friendly had a negative impact on attendance for the early season home games last season is ridiculous. The people who weren't willing to pony up $20 to attend one of the first league games, weren't going to pay the price with/or without the free exhibition match against the Aztex. If anything it likely convinced people to buy tickets that may not have otherwise (although they may have waited for improved weather). Last year I did an analysis (which I can't find now) over a 3-year period and the biggest factors when it comes to attendance are the weather and whether or not it's a midweek match (not promotions, freebies, or advertising although they surely have some impact). In addition, games in August are historically poorly attended across the league. Looking at 2009 data it looks like the same held true again. Here are the 7 lowest attended matches last season: 4/11 DC United 11,793 --- 53 degrees and raining 4/2 Columbus 11,806 --- 48 degrees, raining and midweek 4/25 New England 14,051 --- 47 degrees and cloudy 8/8 Seattle 14,193 --- August 8/26 Chivas 14,747 --- August, midweek 5/6 LA Galaxy 16,155 --- midweek 10/14 NYRB 16,247 --- midweek The other 8 RSL matches ranged from 16,792 to 19,546. Maybe someone with the time could look at attendance of the other teams in the league, but I expect you would find similar patterns.
Are you speaking for all of those people? Bottom line: Extra *free* RSL games in RioT = poor long-term business. Don't expect to see it again. Last year it was likely done for "competitive" reasons (to compensate for RSL's quirky opening week bye). But since JK now discounts the value of full length pre-season training...even that justification seems moot. Again, ticket dumps for regularly-scheduled matches sometimes make sense. Extra, free games don't. Don't confuse the two.
A free something that isn't an RSL soccer game is a terrific way to get new people into the stadium. RSL games at Rio Tinto should not be free, even in the preseason.
Please explain how bringing fans in for a free taste of the RSL experience at Rio Tinto Stadium against the mighty Austin Aztex is a bad thing? It hardly sets a precedent for the regular crowd. They aren't going to say well I got to see a match for free against the Aztex so I'm not paying for any tickets this season. It doesn't cheapen the brand in any way in the sense that if you lower the price for a premium product it may be viewed as a lower quality product. If anything it brings new potential customers into the mix. RSL is about building a long-term base. If they bring several thousand prospective customers into a new stadium for an open house, and get a couple of dozen repeat customers out of it, then it was a success. Especially if those customers then bring other friends/family into the mix at some point. As a one-time thing, I believe that it was a great marketing tool. I happen to have brought several of my wife's family to the Aztex match. None of them had been to any soccer match before. They were impressed by the action on the field, and especially by the stadium. All but one of them ended up buying tickets to several games during the season. A rousing success in my view. Until I see some logic to the contrary, I will continue to believe it.
I've been attending professional and major college sporting events for my whole life, and in diverse markets. I've been part of many special events where people who weren't fans were give ways to buy into the action, and wholly support those (Cub Scout Night at Anaheim Stadium, Sears Night at Dodger Stadium, Faculty Fridays at WSU Cougar Baselball, Family Four packs to Angel games, group and birthday rates to RSL games, flex packages to the Chicago Fire, Weyerhauser Discount Nights for the Seattle Mariners, and other specials with the USC Trojans football, LA Rams, UCLA basketball, and a host of other teams and events. Not a single one has ever offered an entire game for free, whether it be preseason or not. Even the preseason scrimmages at major college football costs to attend. And while I expect soccer teams in the USA to be different and act different on some level, I do not expect them to value their product in their home stadium at zero on a regular basis. The deal with the Aztex was fine, a decent one-off, but for my tastes far too close to the regular season (it then competed directly with ticket buying for early regular season games, not to mention distracting the FO from promoting the real deal).
So if RSL played "themselves" in a preseason friendly at the RioT you would be ok with it being free? But if its the almighty Austin Aztecs or some other lower division team its not? All those other things you listed were in the regular season or against similar quality opponents, not a friendly in the preseason. This is a game that would happen no matter what at some place (see the preseason training games). Why not have one at home? I really dont see how it is "watering down the product". I dont agree with offering a free game during the season, but a free one that doesnt count towards anything... This is soccer in the USA. Getting people to come out is the key. This is becoming a ridiculous argument though, and as BS always proves, neither side will really move the other side. Make your final arguments, and lets move on. There are plenty of things that the FO could do better than to get bogged down on this one
I think that part of the reason for the Aztex game was to fill the gap at the start of the season. Another part was to make sure that some of the stadium glitches from the end of the previous year were worked out. I don't think that we will see any more free exhibitions. They are a cost to the team. How much did it cost to bring Austin up to SLC. Does anyone think that they paid their own way? It was fun and I would not complain a bit if they had another one. But I don't expect one. I would like to see a continuing tradition of going to Ogden and Provo to play the Outlaws and Cougars. I have always enjoyed those games. They draw new people to see tha games, they are not expensive, they make money for the host team, they give RSL a chance to try new players. I like the fact that playing Ogden and BYU can grow the sport. I would consider it a good thing if people went to see RSL and liked it so much that they went to more Outlaws games.
Let the people in Ogden and Provo who would not travel to Sandy get a chance to see RSL play. If they charge $5.00/person, $12.00/family the teams can make some money on the deal. I'm pretty sure that RSL would be one of the better-attended events for either of the teams.
New name.... Real??? There isnt anything Royal about Salt Lake.... I'd change the name to the to one of the following SF Salt Lake "Soccer Franchise" Salt Lake City "The City" Salt Lake SC "Soccer Club" Salt Lake City Saints Salt Lake City Sting(ers) Salt Lake City Lakers
gee thanks for contributing, you are completely original, in fact you are the FIRST troll to ever come on here and suggest RSL should change their name.
Youre a DBag.... The name doesnt make sense... If Utah was under Spanish control at one point it would make a bit of sense... Real Miami or Real Los Angeles would work or if Utah had a nickname like The Queen City I'd understand. But Salt Lake City has no connection with any Spanish Royals. MLS picking names from a hat didnt work with the Clash, Burn, or Wiz and I hope Salt Lake changes it to something that works. I cant stand it when teams move and bring the other teams name with them. Sometimes it works other times its just stupid and the NBA is the worst.
i have just one question for you, did you pay the $30 million for the franchise to be in salt lake? no? really, i would have never guessed. so i guess what you think doesnt really matter. the fans here like the name even if they dont understand its true meaning and changing it now would be even more of a mockery to the team. this argument has been made MANY MANY times, if you want to see why its a retarded argument go back to the early threads of this forum and read. stop wasting both your time and mine with these stupid comments, your opinion isnt worth two cents here.
I think he might still be sour that we beat his team in the MLS Cup. If we change names then maybe he can imagine that the team that beat his team doesn't exist anymore, so his team, in a way, actually won! Or something... anything... just take the pain of losing away by scratching some other itch... like that silly team name. (we have admitted that it is completely irrational, yet it is ours).
If you're going to suggest a name change it is helpful to supply better names. Thanks for playing. Don't let the door hit you...
Well considering that time is money... I assume the few minutes you spent typing your comments are worth more than 2 cents. Keep commenting on my retarded argument. Bah Bye
It's not the same thing at all.... The LA Galaxy started in 1996 the first Era of Los Galacticos at Real Madrid started in 2000. So if anything Real Madrid bit the name off from the Galaxy. But we know that didnt happen. However the Galaxy got there name because LA is the City of the Stars and Galaxy name is easy to translate from Englash to Spanish Galaxia. As for Real Madrid and Real Salt Lake.... The name was clearly stolen to give the Utah Franchise a European feel... However the term Real means Royal and was given to the teams Madrid, Valladolid, Zargoza, Murcia by the Spanish Royal Family. Buh BYE