Columbus Crew to Austin Texas?

Get a better meteorologist...

 

Because something something low attendance something something uncaring owner something something stadium in the middle of nowhere.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Not really. If the "owner" of the Crew is allowed to intentionally tank to justify moving, what's to keep the Rapids, in the midst of a bad run of form, from having the same problem? Columbus is being pointed at as being unable to keep up and I am looking at the Rapids averaging around 15,000, give or take.

Not trying to single out the Rapids, just being realistic. This isn't a Columbus problem alone, we just appear to be the tip of the spear ATM.

 

Well except Precourt bought the team with an Austin clause, Kroenke owns 3 other teams and runs 3 other event venues in Denver. Kroenke's expenses would actually go up if he moved the team, given he would lose the benefits of co-locating the Rapids with the Nuggets and Avs when it comes to ticketing, merchandise, etc. He'd also lose the Rapids as relevant programming for Altitude, unless he moved them somewhere else in the Mountain West (which seems...unlikely). Kroenke's also a real-estate developer who bought the team essentially as a loss-leader to drive development around a stadium.

But yeah, other than those few things, there's a lot of similarity between Columbus and Colorado....

 

You should put down the shovel and stop digging.

 

With Cincy confirmed as an expansion team it looks like the league is getting ready to use a half baked excuse to screw over the Crew even if the Precourt to Austin move fails. "But the people of Ohio will still have Cincy to root for... MLS believes in the Ohio community etc." I hope for the sake of all the Crew fans my fear doesn't prove true.

 

There isn't such a thing as the "Ohio community". Even OSU football which is broadly popular across the state, is less so in SW Ohio. There it competes with UC, ND, and would have to fight with UK if they were good at football.

FCC will draw fans from the Cincy area, up the Miami valley and Ohio valleys but the Crew doesn't get a lot of fans from those areas anyway. Crew have a lot more fans north of I-70 than south of it.

 

yes i realize that--it's just the typical type of bs corporate statement you would expect MLS to parrot under horrible circumstances--making the problem of stripping the crew from the state even worse.

I happen to think that Ohio could easily have the crew, cincy and a theoretical cleveland team without hitting the danger of being "soccer fatigued."

 

Kroenke won't move the Rapids unless he can make better money elsewhere.

If he can, he will most certainly move. If he can make money on the Rapids, but more money elsewhere, he will move. He most St. Louis, and he's done nothing for Arsenal except use it to amass $$$.

Please don't believe that it can't happen to Colorado. All it takes is Stan getting a better deal elsewhere. It's not easy, but not impossible.

 

It's possible that I'll run into Isla Fisher next time I'm at LAX and she'll fall in love with me at first sight.

Don't believe it couldn't happen to me. It's not easy, but it's not impossible.

 

So what you're saying is that Kroenke is invested in his team's community in the exact same way that Precourt isn't.

------RM

 

I don't, but the factors I listed make it very hard to find that deal. Could it happen? Yeah, sure. And off they would go in that case. The same applies for Philly, or Dallas, or Salt Lake, or Vancouver. But we're not "next" as the poster who started this sub-thread suggested. We're at no greater or less risk of moving than a number of other teams.

 

The Rapids don't suck because the owner wants to move the team. They suck because the owner doesn't give a shit and is perfectly fine with a terrible product as long as theres still money coming in.

Our situation is really nothing like Columbus at all. The chances of the Rapids moving is unlikely, but thats not the same as saying it could never happen. Even if they were to move, Denver is a big enough market it would get another team in some form (USL, etc.). That wouldn't be all terrible because it would mean we're cleansed of the Kroenkes and they become someone elses problem.

 

Possible? Nah dude. You ugly.

 

They haven't on the Crew? Fact is, with the SUM money & shares from the TV & sponsorship deals, almost all (if not all) of the owners make money.

Now, depending on how they structure it, the "team" may not, but the owner does.

Again, MLS has NDA's that prevent anyone from showing their work.

 

I don't have any hard evidence, but my guess is that most MLS owners lose money on their MLS/SUM investment. But that's by choice, and it doesn't factor in asset growth (owning facilities/increase team valuation).

People don't buy teams generally for monetary ROI. They tend to buy it for ego, glory, civic pride, owning the team is a price to be paid for something else (like concert venues).

Pretty much all potential profits are rolled back into improving the product or grassroots marketing. All those youth teams wearing MLS gear aren't generating any revenue. But they are expanding the roots in their markets and creating club and crest loyalty, and occasionally finding a future player.

The NWSL crowd is annoyed with Sporting KC for not saving FCKC. They take that as Sporting not wanting an NWSL team. I'm actually pretty certain that Sporting does want an NWSL team - they're just not ready, yet. Despite seven plus years of sellouts and being top 5 in merchandising the club loses money. They built a stadium that was ridiculously more than needed - because they wanted the best toy. They massively upgraded the Swope Park training facility and stadium. They've invested heavily in Swope Park Rangers and their academy system. They've just finished building the new USSF Coaches Education and Training Center - and new first team facility. OnGoal or Sporting Club as it is now known has been on a ten year spending spree. Only one small part of which drives any real revenue. As things settle down, I would expect SKC to eventually add an NWSL club to the family.

The only two clubs that I suspect are rolling in dough are Seattle and Atlanta. 40k/game with brings in a lot of revenue. I suspect a few others are above/near break even (the Revs come to mind), but most teams - by choice - spend more than they make.

It's also why CBA negotiations are so tense and difficult. Sports accounting tends to be whatever you want it to be. The players will posit that the league is rolling in money - and be right. The teams and league will contend that most of the teams are still swimming in red ink - and be right.

 

I would not be so sure about Seattle. There is bound to be a pretty good reason why Lagerway said the Sounders can’t financially compete with the big market teams. From what I’ve been seeing lately, their per game fee at CenturyLink is not small.. Additionally, in order to get Paul Allen to sign on as an owner, they guaranteed him a certain amount of money per year and that he would not be required to contribute financially to the team if the need arises..

 

One issue/item I wanted to raise (forgive me if it was raised already) with respect to Garber/MLS assisting Precourt in moving to Austin is this:

- Garber would rather have Columbus move to Austin than have to prove that MLS could successfully "redevelop" an existing market with a new stadium and associated revenue growth

I say this because when you look at the success of every major league in the US, they almost always can leverage an existing city for a new or upgraded stadium under the threat of a move OR have a real viable market and stadium deal to move to. MLS is going to make far more on selling expansion franchises than the league or any of its owners can make on extorting a new stadium deal, and if they can prevent franchises from having to sell on the cheap - even if it has to subsidize a move to Austin - it keeps the expansion franchise sale model from breaking.

Is Cincinnati really a growth market? But its a new stadium deal and in Ohio!! It does zero for TV and other metrics other than enhancing current MLS' owners cash flow from expansion fees and provides cover to move Columbus.

When you get beyond Columbus and the age and upgrades needed for its stadium (1999 bare bones), there is a pretty good break until the league is going to be faced with the "redevelop" issue in existing markets. All of the MLS 1.0 markets have gotten new stadiums in the last 10-11 years or kept upgrading (LA, Dallas) or have an odd deal like New England. Dispense with Columbus and Garber prevents having to deal with another franchise failing.

 

Sporting Kansas City fan says, "What?"

 

Columbus is the first SSS that has to be re-developed. First time the league is asking a city for SSS number 2. Apparently you failed to comprehend my final sentence before

 

Yeah, that's not really clear in your post.

 

The last 2 lines don’t cover it? “All of the MLS 1.0 markets . . . “. Did I need to list them all?