The reason why a small market team like winnipeg is better than Atlanta is that everyone in winnipeg and the Manitoba province eat sleep, and … the Jets and the NHL. The idea to expand and relocate clubs to bigger US markets was great in theory. Except that in the desert of Phoenix and the Sunny Beaches of Miami Hockey is not really a popular sport. As well Sportsnet Canada outbid TSN with a very gaudy and record breaking dollar amount for NHL rights in Canada. As well the new French Sports network TVA has partnered with Rogers for French Language NHL Rights. Then there are the regional rights that TSN and Sportsnet are battling for individual teams. Along with TSN's sister RDS french language SportsNetwork gaining the rights to Montreal and Ottawa. Should Quebec City manage to pull in a relocated team like Winnipeg the management rights as well as the new Junior Hockey team owner of the QB club also own TVA. The Markets may be smaller in Canada but the National Ratings and regional ratings for clubs are extremely high with a plenty of Corporate sponsors. Winnipeg is sold out forever with a waiting list 3 deep. Calgary and Edmonton as well are filled to capacity and own Junior Hockey clubs for the overflow of fans. Winnipeg is looking to do the same and Quebec City already has purchased the top attended Junior Hockey team which has consistently averaged 10K a game for some years now. The NBA is a world wide product now. In a very star driven league there is no shortage of merchandise being sold all over the world in Particular OKC and Durant Jersey's.
Ha, I made this thread like 6 years ago when I was really bored. I never thought this could actually happen, but tomorrow or the day after the Indiana House will vote on whether to build an 18K seat soccer stadium in Indy. That's fun!
You mean three? We already have Conseco (Bankers Life) and Lucas Oil. Also the House passed the bill for the new stadium. It is now in the Senate.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orlando-magic/os-top-10-nba-arenas-storygallery.html http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1374029-ranking-all-30-nba-arenas The stadium holds over 18,000 for basketball which it was designed for.
Your ranking has the United Center as the 5th best, so Conseco hardly puts that to shame. Then again, that ranking is really dumb. It's pretty clear from reading it the guy hasn't been to nearly all of these places. I mean, the guy ranks Staples for the Clippers at 27 and for the Lakers at 6... I couldn't care less about the NBA, though, so comparing the 2 means absolutely nothing to me.
Size does not make one great. Also I am talking about Conseco not Pepsi Coliseum. No hockey team has playing in Conseco in like a decade.
Holy ********, I know you're not talking about Pepsi Coliseum, LOL. The point is United Center and Conseco are both top tier of the NBA, and United Center was designed for hockey, so it's also not worth comparing. Conseco Fieldhouse does not put United Center to shame, they're pretty equal. Lucas Oil does to Soldier Field, since it can have indoor events there like the Final Four and Super Bowl. New Eleven stadium will put Toyota Park to shame because it'll be built in GenII of the SSSs, which are all significant upgrades over the suburban minor league style GenI SSSs. This is all really funny though, it that I tried to complement something about Indy and all I got was the standard lesson in Indy's inferiority complex.
No, you are encountering a superiority complex, and jokes. Although you don't seem to take jokes very well.
I would hope so, Victory might be great as a minor league stadium. If it is on par or better than a major league stadium that team isn't doing something right.
... bump ... Seems like a huge hit to Indy's MLS prospects. MLS isn't going there without a concrete plan to move the team out of Carroll Stadium.
Damn that sucks. A Cbus/Indy rivalry would be fun to add to MLS. (plus only 3 hours to away games would be a nice change of pace) Hopefully other solutions/situations can rise here to help out.
If they can expand The Mike to 18k, MLS would come if the right investors were in place. Crew Stadium is a perfect example of a stadium that has few amenities but works well for MLS.
The Crew are slowly but actively trying to improve their stadium situation -- i.e. build a new urban stadium with all the amenities. If Crew Stadium is your SSS model, then MLS isn't going to be terribly interested. The league has moved well beyond that bare bones approach. You need a higher standard of amenities, even in a good location. Bottom line: Crew Stadium no longer works all that well for MLS.
MLS doesn't care about the stadium as much as they care about how many seats are filled and the franchise fee the owners will be paying. Amenities means almost nothing to them as long as the stadium is suitable. (Field size and number of seats)
If the current plan is the plan that they move forward with, I am sure if they plan well they can design the renovation to include the ability to add amenities in the future.
While The Crew are improving the stadium and passively seeking a more downtown location (which as much as I'd love I don't see happening anytime soon) I still think the Crew Stadium Model works in MLS. Just look at San Jose's new stadium. It's not downtown, it's not the glitz and glam of RBA, and it's not huge. It's basically a slightly nicer, more modern CCS with a roof. Which is not to disparage the SJSSS (my new favorite acronym) but instead simply to illustrate that having an SSS that is at least 18k is the most important thing. Well that or just dumping sh*tloads of money on Garbers desk and telling him you'll figure it out later al a NYCFC. If Indy can get their own viable stadium, fill it up regularly and pay the expansion fee I don't see why that wouldn't be enough.
San Jose's stadium is pretty glamorous. It's got field level suites and the largest outdoor bar on the continent. Crew Stadium is a glorified high school football stadium, it's a joke to compare it to Avaya.
I'm not saying it isn't nice my point is if you look at it from a high level it's the same erector set style as the CCS. My point was it's an uprgraded version, and not some totally different concept.
No it's not. Avaya stadium is steel and concrete. Very similar to Levi field (49ers) And technically, almost every stadium built is going to have similar "bones". There are only a few ways to build em. The amenities are what separates a college bleacher stadium from one like Avaya
Alright I'll let it go, but from looking at the pictures I've seen It reminds me of an upgraded CCS (which is also steel and concrete). And I think Avaya looks great, but I also think Crew Stadium is great so what do I know.
What's the luxury suite situation at Crew Stadium these days? That's the biggest amenity I'm talking about.
I don't think you know what people mean by "erector set" when the criticize Crew stadium. Avaya has a roof, the structure of Crew stadium can't support one. To say they're both "steel and concrete" is silly. Let's be realistic here, and don't give these nice Indy people false hope. Crew Stadium has long been passed up, it is not the standard for MLS stadiums, in fact it is the most obsolete MLS soccer specific stadium. If Columbus was trying to enter MLS in 2017-20 as an expansion team with their current stadium... there would be half a dozen markets ahead of them. The current Indy stadium may be fine for the team with expansion and renovations, but not much short of completely gutting it and building a modern stadium there would catch the interest of MLS. Hell THERE IS A TRACK between the stands and the field. If expanding that place to 18k was all MLS was looking for, Sacramento wouldn't even have to build a new soccer stadium as part of their expansion bid, they wouldn't even have had to build 11k Bonney Field, they could just kept playing at 20k Hughes Stadium which also has a track.
Both sides of the field have full luxury suites at the top of the lower bowl; they all are fully enclosed with the requisite amenities and an outdoor seating area attached. I haven't ever sat in one but walking by them each game they look pretty nice inside. Granted they're not as nice as say the suites I’ve seen at Buckeye or Blue Jackets games but those teams/venues have more money/are more expensive builds. Over the last 2-3 years there have been quite a bit of upgrades put into the stadium including wider concourses, better signage, better suites, beer garden on the stage, huge new jumbotron (what with the fire and all haha) and other facility upgrades. CCS is what it is at heart though, a stadium put up quickly and on a limited budget. All that said, my original point (which may not have been made very well) was I think if Sacramento or Indy told MLS FO "We have the expansion fee, the fans, and a stadium not dissimilar from present day Crew Stadium” They would be in in a heartbeat. Sure flashy stadiums like RBA are nice but I think what really matters is control of your own venue/revenue streams and a clear commitment to the area and league.