But if we run out of things to talk about in the offseason, this forum could cease to exist entirely! Then where would we be? With our loved ones or at our jobs? Is that really the world you want?
This is crap. If a DP can help a team, and jersey sponsor dollars can help get a DP, then that's why someone would want a jersey sponsor. I also think it's asinine to proclaim that a jersey sponsor is just to help the rich get richer when most of the richest teams in Europe are losing money. The Chicago Fire have NEVER made money. As much time, energy and dollars we all spend on them they still lose money every year.
She reminds me of a hooker I ran across at a temple in India. Had I taken her up on her offer and lay down in the bed of hay for a blow job, not one minute later (maybe 30 seconds...) I would have been trampled by an elephant. Yes, temples in India have hookers. And elephants. No, even after months of hard (up) traveling they're not worth the $1.
That's a bit of a non sequitur. Just because many teams overspend doesn't change the fact that they are given a revenue stream that is inherently higher than lower clubs. How much a team is will to go over budget and financially overextend them self is absolutely tied to their current and potential revenue. I hate jersey sponsorships and wish they were banned the world over. But I agree that as long as they're allowed in MLS, then the Fire should, and perhaps are compelled to, participate .
You don't think an extra million / year would be taken into consideration when it comes to things like: if they should sign a new DP or not? I don't know that it does, but it seems like it would. I'd also love to have a club that made so much money (Barca) that they can do whatever they want and still sign any player in the world with money to spare, but the Fire AFAIK are not making any money. Barca BTW just signed the most expensive jersey sponsorship deal in history, and will now feature the logo of a group from Qatar on their jersey, so they aren't really all that different from any other club anymore in that respect.
If we are trying to have a conversation about banning jersey sponsorship in MLS then thats fine. But as long as teams like Seattle/Houston/Philly/NY(sort of) are raking in $3mm/year on jersey sponsorship, we are at a big disadvantage if we don't keep up. And in the USA a jersey sponsorship's value should be driven mainly by the size of the market (since tv ratings are minuscule) and Chicago should be near the top of the list.
The only reason why they would "donate" their sponsorship is if they couldn't find one who would pay the asking price. And while I think it's great what Barca does, maybe if they had a shirt sponsor they wouldn't need to borrow money to pay their players. It's also great to have fan ownership, but that's prima facie impossible under MLS's single entity structure. Isn't the Best Buy deal officially expired now?
I think that's a false dichotomy. The market sets ticket prices, not the need of the team. Do you believe that teams would refrain from raising prices if they felt they could do so without backlash? No real disagreement here.
I know what you're saying, but my "Safeway Insurance Skyway" season tickets went from 650 to 99 when they got that sponsorship. The club can be expected to accept a certain loss per year, but not much more. I bet they would rather drop ticket prices and get more people attending games if it didn't hurt their bottom line, because it would grow the club in the long term in a great way. Once they are selling out and have people hooked, then they implement "phase 2" which you accurately described: "raising prices if they felt they could do so without backlash"
Let's not delude ourselves by comparing the financial situation of the non-profit, city-owned, and very wealthy FC Barca with any franchise in MLS. And eventually, even Barca is selling out. Staying abreast of Real's outrageous spending is going to tax Barca's moral standing.
Shirt sponsor - any news? Is there any word on a shirt sponsor yet? We know how long it took to get the Best Buy shirts on the market from when the sponsorship was announced, so time is ticking.
Re: Shirt sponsor - any news? I hope if there's no sponsor they at least have the good sense to leave the stripe blank. Slapping "FIRE" on it would be good for nostalgia, but ultimately a step backwards.
Re: Shirt sponsor - any news? I'd rather slap FIRE on the front of the jersey than leave it blank. If you're unable to secure corporate dollars to splash their logo on the front, you might as well promote your club and your brand. Nothing vs. advertising your brand? Easy decision. I'd purchase a couple jerseys with FIRE or CHICAGO printed on them.
Re: Shirt sponsor - any news? Yes, a massive step backwards if this club can't find a sponsor in a city this large.