I agree with you that for USL teams the Open Cup means more. Here's the deal, though. The Rhinos average 10k a game for crappy USL games too. Have you been to the stadium they're currently playing in. It makes San Jose's stadium look like Old Trafford. This isn't just this year, but they do it every year. What will the bump in attendance be when the club gets a real soccer stadium? I don't know. What would the potential bump be when the team moves to MLS? I don't know. As stated above, the stadium being built will have the capacity in time of 20k. So there are two questions for me: 1) Rochester averages 10k for minor league soccer. Great. Is that the ceiling? Could they average up to 20k if the team was in MLS? Would people travel from Buffalo and Syracuse more often if the team was in MLS rather than USL? 2) Would the potential Rochester investors be able to pony up the required cash to buy and operate an MLS franchise? To me this is TBD.
2005....9550 2004...10181 2003...10169 2002...10008 2001...10780 2000...11628 1999...11551 1998...11499 1997...10677 1996....9991 Source, of course: http://www.kenn.com/soccer
Thanks for the education and NO, it is not a negative. The question is whether it is the huge positive that others are claiming. My argument is that it is not. MLS does not need Rochester though Rochester is a possibly good addition to MLS. I think this shows that USL attendance is not much of an indicator. One could also argue that Rochester draws well in part because they win a lot, in part because of their superior attendance -- who knows what would happen if they were mediocre. I agree that Rochester is a good candidate, but it is not like it is so good that ownership group and money can or should be ignored. No one was as far as I am concerned. My point is that those that were implying that Rochester's attendance is so awesome that MLS ought to beg it to join are mistaken.
Poor USL attendance probably isn't a reason not to put a team someplace if a solid business plan is in place (Seattle has good USL teams and a major league facility, and only 2,500 consistent fans as one example). However, it certainly provides more reason to put a team in a certain city if it's successful. Is it solely due to winning? Nah. While the Rhinos haven't had a bad team, this team hasn't won a championship for several years. There were some bumps early on too. Rochester's support of teams is pretty consistent through wins and losses. That was a factor in Rochester being ranked the best "minor league" sports city by Street and Smith's this year. Even if losing took its toll, increased media buzz, a better facility, and a better product would more than make up the slack. Whether it's the fact that this team packed a DIII stadium early in its first season when it was winless, or that it drew remarkable crowds through a pretty dry streak in 1997, I don't see it as an issue. I agree that money is a factor. I just struggle with any of the spin. USL attendance may not be an indicator for cities with totally separate ownership groups. If the Rhinos maintained the same ownership at some level, they start with 5,000+ season seat holders off the bat. Not a bad beginning. But, as you said, money won't be ignored, and that's fair enough.
Imagine where our attendances would be if we drew 60k-70k for a July 4th game and 50 to 90 thousand for a doubleheader each season! That would add about 100k to our season attendance total. That would make our attendance look more like this: 2005 17883 2004 17323 2003 17312 2002 17151 2001 17030 2000 18295 1999 18694 1998 17749 1997 17820 1996 15546 Granted we'll never do that without a stadium available, but you can see how Metros, Galaxy, Colorado, Chicago, etc have skewed numbers. Of course, this is already covered at: http://kenn.com/soccer/mls/doubleheaders.html and says that they only affect overall league attendance by 4.5%, but it does affect individual teams drastically. Let's take Colorado for example and throw away their July 4th Fireworks attendance. You get: Average July 4th Fixed Avg % Diff 10,213 20,117 9553 -6.9% 11,835 36,252 10207 -16.0% 14,812 46,722 12685 -16.8% 14,029 51,025 11562 -21.3% 12,580 53,126 9877 -27.4% 16,481 60,500 12812 -28.6% 20,687 61,202 17571 -17.7% 16,772 60,142 13674 -22.7% 14,195 41,979 12210 -16.3%
In some important ways, the two are the same thing. One of these 'dollars and cents' factors is how much you get to charge for the more epxensive seats in the house. Not all attendance is equal--Dallas, for instance, a team that does not outdraw Rochester, will be making $600k a year on its luxury suites in its new stadium. It would take around 2,000-2,500 'average' fans a game (at around $15 a ticket) to bring in that kind of revenue. Los Angeles does even better in this regard, as not only the luxury seats but also the front-row center seats are quite expensive. It's those kinds of questions that make MLS without Phase II funding close to a non-starter. But that's clearly not true, in the sense that 'what boost comes from a better stadium? from a higher competition?' are totally open questions. The beauty of this is that the first question will be answered when the Rhinos take the field in a stadium that better suits their stature (and even the second will be hinted at, I believe). And it basically costs neither side anything to wait for the results of that 'experiment.' The team is in the short run more profitable as a dominant team in USL1 than as a small fish in a big pond in MLS. If these questions are answered satisfactorily, it's the investor question that will probably work itself out. Somebody with the big bucks will want in at that point.
Not true. The second question has already been answered time and again in Rochester and the USOC game against Chicago was an even clearer answer. Because the game wasn't included in the season ticket holder packages, everyone who wanted to go to the game had to go out of their way to buy tickets. The 11,121 number is probably as close to equal in the gate vs paid attendance numbers the Rhinos have had during the season, FOR a Wednesday night game. If you went back and looked at all of the attendances for meaningful games against high competition, I'm sure you'd see a very clear answer to your question.
...over 11,000 fans seated in a baseball stadium where the majority of seats are wrapped around one corner of the temporary soccer field ...and where over 1200 seats are portable high school bleacher seats placed on an outfield grass with long walks to the concession/rest rooms...and cannot hear the sound system. I would estimate that well over 70% of seats are substandard with terrible site lines. It shocks me that they are still consistantly attracting over 10,000 fans per game in a baseball venue...year after year...after year...after year...after year....etc.
But that was one of the biggest games of the season! The equivalent game for DCU was probably Pumas (also on a Wednesday, and IIRC not part of the season ticket package), at which DCU drew 21k fans. The question is directed at a season including Wednesday night matches against regular MLS teams for a regular game. Further, you have to expect veteran MLS observers to not be wowed by any evidence merely that Rochester's attendance wouldn't be the worst in the league. I mean, you have to understand the "BFD" reaction there. The reactions here that anything over 10k proves something big are way inflated, in addition to not saying much about the week-in, week-out grind of an MLS season (and sometimes it is a grind). The reality is a lot of MLS games will not be played for big stakes, and there will in all likelihood be games where neither team plays any great style, either. It's not meant to be a way of slamming the door on Rochester, but if you think you know what would happen, you're either Nostradamus or the see-no-evil monkey.
Clearly Rochester citizens cannot be veteran MLS observers and clearly veteran MLS observers have a better feel from afar for the pulse of Rochester soccer fans (at least there is a pulse as compared to some MLS markets), so it's pretty evident we underlings are in no place to argue. We are eternally grateful that veteran MLS observers are willing to grace us with their presence.
What you do, then, is look at the median. LA does NOT have skewed #s any more. And their #s were so strong consistently that they warranted a stadium, just like Rochester.
LOL. MLS needs financially stable oufits like Rochester more than Rochester (or Montreal) need MLS right now. Let's see... the league is bleeding red ink and needs "owner-investors" and "soccer specific stadiums" to stop the bleeding. A couple of years ago potential investors in Tulsa as well as the local press were told the entry fee would cost a cool $10 mil, a SSS needed to be built, the "ability to sell 7500" season tickets secured... but wait, there's more... even if the team breaks even, local investors will need to pony up an additional $2 mil a year to, in essence, subsidize the losses in other cities. $2 mil a year?... hmmm... 5,000 more tickets will need to be sold per game at $15 per ticket = $75,000 per game multiplied by 15 games = 1.125 million dollars. And it's a good thing you control stadium revenues, cuz you'll need to sell a whole lotta hot dogs and brewskis (another $12 per fan) to get to the $2 mil you'll need to keep the "Major" in Major League Soccer since the lionshare of league losses come from expenses in DC, Chicago and the Meadowlands. Why else do you think AEG is spending tens of millions of their own $$$ to build that stadium in Harrison? Also keep in mind that even with essentially the same team, the Rhinos would need to have salaries in line with all other MLS teams... that means higher ticket prices to boot. THIS is what Joey Saputo is talking about when he says he's not interested in MLS and that he's dedicated to advancing "local soccer." Wait a year, save $2 mil... then, after a full year of games at Pizza Hut Park and the opening of Bridgeview, maybe that $2 mil lowers to $1.5 mil per team... Commerce City (Rapids) and Harrison build new stadiums that lower the annual loss to under a million... then Salt Lake City and DC break ground... well... Just waiting 3-5 years BEFORE seriously pursuing MLS could free up 5-10 mil dollars for Rochester and/or Montreal to spend on "local soccer" or "Phase III." AFTER most MLS teams start playing in their own stadiums in which they control more of their own revenues, single-entity could more effectively be sold to potential investors/cities. Guaranteed losses of a few hundred thousand dollars a year (more than I have to spend... but, oh well) would actually mitigate losses-- the sad season when the team sucked and you barely drew 10k wouldn't force you out of the league. And if a team becomes a habitual drag on league revenues, you could simply "vote them off the island" as was done with Tampa and Miami. ah, no... don't do it... al...ready... made... point... can't... resist... IF LAMAR HUNT WERE FROM FLORIDA, KC AND DALLAS WOULDA BEEN CONTRACTED AND WE'D BE WATCHING MLS CUP THIS YEAR FROM "BURGER KING PARK" IN MIAMI OR TAMPA.
You guys are getting as bad as the San Jose fans in your zeal to label anyone who doesn't go along with the prevailing groupthink as a "troll."
Unless Rochester gets owners with deep pockets, I'll doubt we'll ever see the Rhinos in MLS. I mean, they couldn't even shell out 10 million for their erector set stadium, and they are an MLS caliber team? Who is going to pay all the bills...by that I mean salaries. Finally, as long as they have that cheesey logo, they shouldn't be let near MLS. Somebody once had a massive post about tradition, give me a break. It looks like a saturday morning cartoon.
Can anybody remind which trophies the Burn and the NY/NJ Metrostars have won? I think the Burn may won an USOC. What about the NY/NJ. That's what I thought. Zero. You both have delusions of mediocrity. And that's being polite.
The 1997 US Open Cup, as a matter of fact. And when was the last time your team won the championship in your little beer league?
And NOW, conclusive proof that Rochester will be in MLS: The Onion | City Councilman Unearths Magical Zoning Amulet http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4134&n=3
Smack talk? Was that supposed to be an argument? If any attempt at admitting the unknown is a 'troll', then you're a dictator. Be gone with you.