2006, The Banner Year for MLS

Also factor in a stadium for Chivas USA wherever they play by 2007/2008.

It looks like 2006 is going to be all or nothing. The league will have everything going for it. A strong World Cup showing and the hype that comes with new stadia will be great. Not to mention that some kid named Freddy will be 17 years old for most of the season. If soccer doesn't catch on as a major sport by 2006 and I don't know if it ever will.

 

Or, then again, it could just be another one of Nick S's lame attempts to avoid getting sacked.

How can you fire the GM when the team is so close to finally getting its SSS.

 

An exercise in counting unhatched chickens.

 

I think the guy is right...

Most of the stadium deals seem pretty much certain. Attendance should show a decent bump this year. Like it or not, Freddy is putting a name and a face on the league. The only thing that makes me a little nervous is the expansion situation. There's not a single one of the candidates that looks like a slam dunk. The clown who thought Chivas was going to build their own SSS is probably in for a dose of cheap Vergara reality. He'd rather try to steal the one in LA. But all and all, I think it's going to be a pretty good year.

 

Just FYI, Kevin Payne recently said he hopes to have DC's stadium ready by the time the Metros have theirs, which would indicate a timetable quicker than 2007 or 2008 (not that it means anything definite, just what they are targeting at the moment).

 

Payne said an announcement could come as soon as 60 days (but looking at the Metro's Harrison saga, we all know it doesn't mean a whole lot until the money is committed and the shovels are in the dirt).

 

As a person who has followed the Metro's saga ... Why does that 1st line make me laugh ?

 

It's not bad at all. Certainly not worth changing

Not that it matters in their cushy situations, but neither KC or NE need another stadium. Both are fine as is.

Both stadiums rock when they are anywhere near full on the lower level. When they are not close to full, it wouldn't matter if the capacity was that of the lower bowls or a 20k SSS. Both will still feel "empty" to those watching on TV or not sitting in the supporters' sections. In fact, in a SSS with no masive concrete overhang the effect would be to appear even more empty.

Beside the fact that both cities have more appropriate things to do with $x million than give it to Messers Hunt and Kraft, both stadiums have many fan ammenities that may not be part of a replacement SSS. There are things like televisons at the top of each section (good when it sunamis each spring, etc.) and at the concessions, ample partying/tailgating/"beer rental" facilities meant for 80k that exist through the NFL tennants, huge high quality video boards (plural), sound quality good enough for 80k, known location, etc. Also, KC's stadium floor is set well down below parking level, so all this "the noise escapes" talk is just garbage, at least in KC's situation. If you need it louder than that, then just go to an NBA game or racetrack...and bring your earplugs.

Not even football lines are a major deal. I can't remember of any situation in 8 years where the residue of footall lines made an actual difference in the outcome of a game in NE or KC. Certainly you might argue the turf based perma-lines might have done something, bet they are history.

You would have to reach to have a complaint with much validity...Arrowhead (home of KCW) is a bit thin. Again, a reach. I've heard anecdotal stories of poor tailgating at NE games, but someone else could speak to that.

 

Re: It's not bad at all. Certainly not worth changing

Both places might lack the atmosphere of a smaller venue, but they pass the main criteria--they don't bleed a lot of money from the league like Giant's Stadium does. But it should be pointed out that Invesco Field in Denver was a pretty decent deal for the Rapids but they're still planning on building their own place. If Hunt wanted to build a SSS in KC, he certainly would know how to do it. As for Boston, Foxboro is a pretty sucky location. I bet they could average 5,000 more per game if they had a place closer to the center of town. I hear the politics are little difficult, but an urban stadium in Beantown would really rock.

 

Its not going to be a major sport in 2006, we are going to have wait a bit longer until it is considered "major".

However, what all these signs point to is, come 2006, the viability of the sport over the long term is in good shape.

 

That is one hidden problem with the MLS single-entity business plan. Kraft doesn't have to do a thing to raise the value of his investment in the league. Phil Anschutz and Lamar Hunt are raising the value of Kraft's shares by spending/toiling for their franchises. The rising tide (in terms of franchise value, incremental increases in revenue from TV, merchandising, etc) is floating the Revolution as much as any other team.

I think it would be nice to see Kraft recognize the value of his situation and at the very least try to do for merchandising and "fan development" what his fellow owners have done in terms of facility improvement.

Granted Kraft has had to bear his share of the deficit situations in NY/NJ and DC and its not like his stadium was built for free. We don't know what he has done for MLS behind closed doors. But in reality, he does seem very cheap and close-fisted in the way he manages his soccer franchise.

 

Re: It's not bad at all. Certainly not worth changing

You know, I think that this is the first wholly positive post that I have ever read about Arrowhead, and it makes several good points.

Less than 10,000 people would look just as lousy in a SSS as it is in an NFL stadium, and, unless you're at an A-League game, there isn't much good that can come from just 10,000 people. And, the lower bowl of one of these stadiums isn't much different from a SSS without a roof (e.g., Crew Stadium).

And, I've noticed from watching PDL games in high-school football stadiums that, when you're actually at the game, football lines aren't nearly as noticeable or annoying as they are on TV. Of course, that may change if you sit higher than the top row of a high-school football stadium, but from the highest vantage point in the place, the roof of the press box for the US Open Cup game between the Mid-Michigan Bucks and the MetroStars, it still didn't detract from my viewing of the game as much as on TV.

And yes, there is something to be said for the NFL-style amenities. Now, if they can make the place look more like a real home for the Wizards during their games, there really wouldn't be much of a reason to have to move.

 

SUM revenue?

Another thing to think about in this little 2006 fantasy we are having. Remember that huge contract SUM bought for the World Cups in '02 '03 and '06? Well all of that should pay off in '06 giving MLS/SUM a pretty big chunk of change. Anyone think that with the new landscape of a league with 8-9 out of tweleve team already making or nearing profitablity that MLS may use some of that cash to make a bit of a post world cup Transfer splash? Adding two or three recognizable stars in the vein of a Valderama or Donadoni (Beckham and Ranaldo?) with another three or four lesser known but in their prime World Cup players would certainly help to keep America interested in soccer past the world cup. Maybe even cause a few of those Eurosnobs to take a second look at their local teams and their fancy new stadia? Just a thought...

 

Re: SUM revenue?

If we are able to get Ronaldo to MLS in 2006 - he won't have a lot to offer. Given Ronaldo's body type, age, etc - he will not be the kind to have much to offer when he falls from an elite performance level. He will follow the Romario/Rivaldo trajectory.

Beckham is another matter. If he sticks with Real Madrid for a couple more seasons, he may very well be ready for a completely different type of experience on the order of what he might get playing in MLS. He could be to MLS what Klinsmann was to the EPL following the '94 World Cup (one of the few elite continental players to willingly go to England). After all - it could be awkward for Beckham to go back to England at an advanced age (unless Man Utd falls on very hard times - they may not want to resign him at that age), as he would be very picky about which club to play at.

 

Pretty sound advice.

Except reserve league and developmental slots don't need to pull in the 50 - 70,000. I would think your expanded roster of first team players would deserve the raise, but your developmental/reserve team roster (maybe 9 - 12 additional players) would have to still be willing to play for "apprentice wages". After all. That is what they do in developmental leagues for our other major sports.

 

Good ideas, but raising the minimum salary is going to require raising the cap by more than 300,000.

The key to making the league better is having more money to sign quality role players. Its not the cheap players, or the expensive one that raise the overall quality of a league.

 

Re: SUM revenue?

There's very little evidence that bringing in a "big name" soccer star at the tail end of his career will actually put butts in the seats. Not only that, but very of them seem able to contribute much on the field. If anyone attracts new fans, it seems to be young Americans. It's just too bad that every team couldn't have their own Adu. Instead of becoming a retirement league, I'd like to see MLS become the league of choice for young rising stars in this hemisphere. Maybe become a stepping stone between the smaller leagues in Central/South America and Europe.

 

Denver Mugwump-Good points, but there is some value in name reconition. Valderamma put butts in the seats (check out his effect on away attendance). Donnadoni might have had a serious effect, but his stay was too short to really tell. That is why I mentioned those names as models to shoot for and speculated that names such as Beckham and Renaldo DO have impressive recognition in the states. (serously when has MLS ever had stars with that amount of recognition?) If you noticed I also stated a greater number of world cup players IN THEIR PRIMES should be purchased. This would certainly not give the air of a retirment league, but rather a shrewd one purchasing players for a variety of reasons. Maybe some liked a certain player in the world cup, maybe they wanted to see David Beckham, or maybe they saw Adu and donnovan in action and want to get anothe look. No on thing will create the explosion of intrest that all of us on these boards are hoping for it must be a diverse number of reasons.
Peledre- also very good ideas and things that certainly should happen. My point was merely that MLS should try and capitalize on the huge amount of intrest genrated by the world cup and make every effort to infuse the league with as much of that energy as possible. With the ablility to reap the rewards of a serious attendence spike caused by such moves MLS would be in a much better psoition to instate more of those type of changes the following year.