At this point, it would be a semantic argument and not the basis for excusing the F.O.'s bad decision making. I find it hard to believe the league's leader in merchandise sales is a small market. We just have poor owners.
It really comes down to how committed the ownership is to build something special here that fans can be proud of. I dont expect the Union to splash cash around like LA, NY, Seattle, Toronto and (soon) NYCFC. But you can be plenty successful as "small market" in MLS, and there's absolutely no reason that we can't be every bit the success that teams like SKC and RSL are, and that comes down to how savvy the organization and coaching staff is in building the team. They've made their fair share of smart moves (trades that landed Jack and Amobi, Mondragon/Valdes, Casey, etc) and dumb moves (Adu, Soumare "laughable" LB) that the jury's still out at this point IMO.
We need to stop being so trigger shy on the international market. RSL and SKC add real talent and real improvements from abroad.
When your scouts double as members of your coaching staff, have limited reach when it comes to their scouting radii (colleges, lower divisions, etc), and your "highly touted" scouting director - or whatever the eff his title is - is nonexistent, there's not really a whole lot you CAN do internationally. That said, similar to the DP-signing argument, I don't think dipping into the international market is a proven means of success.
Just to be clear, I wasn't endorsing the author's conclusions. I just hadn't seen the article posted here yet and thought it might spark some interesting debate. And it did!
I don't agree with categorizing 'market size' according to how much you spend on players. Market size to me is more about income than expenditure. I'd like to see a league table of income / revenue, covering tickets, merchandising, TV contracts, sponsorships... but that is probably all super-secret knowing MLS. We'd be higher up the order in that. This ranking as it stands is maybe more about ambition, as per the original thread title. But it's hard to distinguish between the mass of teams that stay close to the salary cap.
But we still don't know if this dude is just hanging out on a beach drinking beer and staring at chicks.....OR actually working to find players and the owners/coaching staff not wanting to spend the money on them or not thinking they fit into what the team is trying to do....
Anybody have the MLS salary chart and where we come out......If we are truly one of the best supported teams, do you think the FO will raise ticket prices to create funds for more salary room? If I was an owner I think I would be looking at that as an option....Testing fans loyalty can be a dicey plan though. The Yankees are in a huge market and spend a pant load on players...same with Phillies and West Coast teams.....seem to go hand in hand with me. The more money you make the more you can spend. If the Union are making a killing and not putting it back into the organization then they are doing the fans a disservice.....I don't think they're doing that, I think they have debt they're trying to pay off.....hence very frugal..
One person commented on the article seemed to think the Union were turning a small profit (I would think it is unlikely cause we are so new and have the startup costs) and were trying to attract more partners to increase the available cash flow. Because of the desire for deeper pockets they weren't spending yet because they want to use the fact that money is being made so quickly. I can't entirely disagree with that thought process as deeper pocketed owners (Wolverine?) with different type of clout than the current stable could in turn bring in more money. If they are making a decent profit with no desire to attract additional partners and things like paving the parking lots are being overlooked then I will be irate to say the least.
Financial issues aside, the Union need to re-think their scouting network also....if we're going to work within a budget, than we need someone very clever, has an eye for talent and knows how to broker a deal. Hack loves Danny Cruz, so Hacks out....going by Zman Gunner posts, he's probably better than the whole Union staff!
Rule of thumb, somewhere between $3k-$5k PER SPACE to pave a surface parking lot. There's easily more than 200 spots in Lot A, so on the high side you're looking at AT LEAST $1M.
Perhaps, but parking lots are tax deductible - although it may not matter since the Union does not like to pay its taxes (or payments in lieu of taxes ).
Hasn't that been disproven a few times over? But I mean, we wouldn't want to force you into being an honest journo...