I enjoyed the article--let's hope "attacking" soccer pans out. Did anyone else think the article ended a little abruptly?
This is a GREAT point. That's the first time I've read that information before and it didn't connect to that idea before you mentioned it.
I think you have it backwards. I"m guessing the higher attendance they bring in the cheaper the EQuakes rent is. This is probably because if there are more people in the stadium then more food/drinks are sold and more people park, I'm guessing most of this money goes to spartan shops, therefore they don't need to charge the Quakes as much.
It's higher attendance = higher rent. Because Spartan Shops has to bring in more staff for pretty much every aspect of the operation. The attendance figures are accurate. The rent is based on the amount of personnel Spartan Shops needs, which is based on expected attendance, not announced attendance.
Sampson? Seriously? This is the same guy who basically invented the 4-5-1 that the USMNT used before Uncle Brucie came along. Interesting that Cobi wasn't protected, though. Hmmmmmm. It may be Hankinson II at a toolbox near you.
Yes, it's economics. Higher sales is higher costs, but hopefully by a smaller and smaller amount (economics of scale). I'm guessing there's a flat fee involved (maybe that's the $30k) just for opening the stadium, plus a small fee per fan (maybe a bit over a buck, figuring that high figure was $70k and the stadium holds 30k seats, it'd be $1.33). So, your costs are $40k higher for a sellout than for a game nobody attends. However, your per unit costs go down the more you sell, so that, in the example, two games with 15k fans each would cost a total of $100,000. However, one game with 30k fans would cost only $70,000. Still an incentive to draw extra fans (though arguably not enough of one, if the example is anywhere close to reality). ------------------------------------ maxim Well, I amplified my comments in the Quakes boards, and aside from the waxing nostalgic, this proposal strikes me as more realistic than the other options-- which as I see them are three: expecting a public entity, AEG, or some white-knight new owner to pay for a new one. It's based on two assumptions: 1. Every man has his price 2. The price for the lease rights of a stadium built piece-by-piece from 1933 to 1998 would be a lot lower than finding a place for, and building a new stadium in the Bay Area. I'm guessing the latter would be $70 million. I'm not sure why the former would be any more than about a tenth of that. The Quakes are currently paying a premium for not being a long-term occupant, and even at that, the present value of their current lease being extended forever can't be more than $20 million dollars, once you factor for the extreme improbability that the Quakes will be there moer than a couple more years on the current terms, that figure goes down precipitously. If the City of San Jose (or the county, or whomever) stepped in and offered $7 million cash upfront for a 20-yr lease (and remember, depending on the terms, that need not necessarily limit the SJ State Spartans in very many ways they aren't already limited now), a coldly rational person acting only on economic motives should probably take it. Of course we don't know if the lease manager, Spartan Shops, is the former, and we know they aren't the latter, so whether they take it is an open question. And we also know a proposal like this would be asking the City to write most of this loss off (they could recoup some of it by asking for a nominal fee along the lines of what the Crew and Galaxy pay for use of land, as well as a small cut of ancillaries). And there's a very real chance they'd not be interested in such a thing. However, it seems, in a pure economic sense, to be better for all three entities than each of the other's preferred alternatives. And that's the essence of compromise. (wow, that was long-winded)
I'm sure Sampson feels insulted ..It was the 3-6--1! My opinion is that SS will do a lot better having the Galaxy from the start of the season....I think he is a capable coach, not as horrible as the WC 98 performance showed not as great as the 4th place Copa America showing either, but somewhere in the middle....And that, by MLS standars, is pretty good....and no, i do not expect a 3-6-1 lineup to return......
Which may be a crappy system, but it's also a lot more offensive. Hamilton claims Sampson was hired for offense. I will mostly take him at his word until I see otherwise.