As we know the Crew and Galaxy will be the only teams to have thier own stadium come this season. With talks in the works, it seems a possibility that Metros and now Dallas may be getting stadiums as well. Are there anymore potential stadiums in the works with DC, Chicago, etc.? And does anyone know whether or not having 3-4 stadiums will be enough for MLS to turn a profit.
i really think that talking about stadiums for metrs and bur are a little apresurated.... ohh... and i think that if metrostars are out of GS, and dallas is moving to his own garden, than i think a profit could be made....
I agree with this. It's about $80,000-100,000 a game in rent for the Metro's right now. Columbus and LA have their own homes. KC and NE play in very good deals in the home of the NFL team the owner also owns. Dal and NY could have own homes. Col and Chi have not too bad deals (once the Fire go back to Soldier field) SJ and DC have the worst deals. Any expansion team will have a very favorable lease deal or SSS, or they won't be awarded as an expansion team. In 2005 we could see 6 SSS (including expansion), plus the current deals for KC, NE, Col, Chi, Sj, and DC. I think we could break even then.
IF (a big IF), the Dallas and MetroStars stadiums get started this year (i.e., done by spring 2005), DC United would leap to the top of the list of clubs needing stadiums of their own. United's situation could turn very bad very quickly if MLB returns to the District. I agree with the previous poster who says that by 2005 MLS could be in pretty decent shape stadium-wise. The biggest money loser (by far) in MLS is the MetroStars. And that's because of their wretched stadium situation. That huge negative could turn into a huge plus in Harrision. I'm not an optimist by nature, but if MLS gets those Dallas and Harrision stadiums built, the league could be on the verge of long term stability as a business (IMHO).
6? By 2005 I only count 4 stadiums being done possibly. If 6 were to be done by then, that means there are two more teams with plans in place at the same point as the Burn and MetroStars. Have you heard something I haven't?
2005 is the target date for expansion and if, say, Rochester and OKC join the league, then MLS could have SSS's in Columbus, LA, Dallas, NY, Rochester and OKC.
well at least we have hopes isn't it???? we just have 2 sss.... we must prey for another 4 in 2005????.... well it will be a LONG prey...
We have 2 current SSS Dallas is super close. NY looks like it might actually happen. If we expand in 2005, we can all safely assume MLS will not award a team unless those teams look like they will either have a SSS or have a lease good enough that it might as well be a SSS (ala KC or NE). That's six. If you count KC and NE, that would be 8 with dang good deals. 2 more in COL and CHI with pretty decent deals. 2 more (DC and SJ) with less than optimum deals.
just a question... i know that DC have a horrible lease... but why SJ does???... i think that spartan is a crappy stadium... who owns spartan???
I'll I know is that it was reported - a couple of months ago - that AEG was negotiating a long-tern deal at Spartan Stadium. One can assume (not necessarily correctly) that Anschutz wouldn't bother signing a bad long-term lease. Perhaps the Quakes have a shot at improving their lease (i.e., better scheduling, access to some ancillary revenue) and, therefore, are looking into something long-term. But for the narrow pitch, Spartan seems like a decent stadium for MLS (it only seats 30,000+, right?).
The teams that I've read have the worst leases are NY/NJ and DC, and these reportedly are the worst by a mile (especially NY/NJ). Chicago's lease terms at Naperville aren't too good from what I've heard, but once they move to the new Soldier field, their rent should be on a par with that of Colorado, San Jose, and Dallas. The teams in best position, of course, are the ones where the I/O is also the owner/operator of the stadium, i.e. KC, NE, CLB, and LA.
agreed, IIRC 2006 is a key year for MLS. The TV deal runs out, the investors are not committed past that year, and the World Cup. If the League is still loosing money and has no prospects of making any, ESPN/ABC dont want to committ to a new deal, and the USA has a poor WC or, heaven forbid, dont qualify at all, then the league could be closed down. But if the league can turn a small profit, even for just one year then the door may stay open for a few more years. The key to this is the Metrostars. They are just bleeding money. If they could break even, the the rest of the teams may pull the league into the black.
Atlanta is one of the worst sports towns in the world. Watch any Braves, Hawks, Thrashers, or Falcons game. It would be a nightmare if MLS went to Atlanta.
Spartan Shops, Inc., a subsidiary of San Jose State University, owns and operates Spartan Stadium. I don't know about Spartan being a "crappy stadium", I'm quite partial to the place having been to soccer games there over the better part of 28 years, but the Quakes will be there for long into the forseeable future, due to the fact that there doesn't seem to be anywhere else within San Jose/Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley etc. to build a SSS for the team. Much of that is due to real estate costs and lack of availability in that market at the moment, or at least that was the case before I left there. Having said that, I can't imagine much having changed in the last 15 months or so. In light of that, I'd like to see the Quakes take control of that stadium, but I don't see that happening unless other circumstances take shape (such as if SJSU disbanded their football program, for example). The Quakes may not have the best stadium deal as per their current arrangement with the University, but it's not going to be the worst for an extended length of time, either.
I know this is sacrelidgious for an LA fan to say, but I enjoyed watching the sold out (26k) game at Spartan last year. It's a good stadium... I wish SJ could annex it. tm
Best place to watch a game, Tommy. And as long as you're a soccer fan supporting the American product, your statement isn't one of sacriledge at all. And I know my statements are a bit biased, having watched games there over 27 years as a fan and as a journalist-- but truth be told, I wish we had some stadiums here in Australia like Spartan. Something really homespun and intimate about that place, and I do miss it.
Interesting thread, hate coming in late. 1. Chicago's deal with Naperville isn't great price-wise or gate-wise. I understand we're paying around the same amount (one rumor said more) than we were at SF under the old lease. BUT the big benefit is that we get more revenue streams, i.e. we get revenue from concessions and parking now. The word is that when we move back to SF, we will have access to these streams, where in the past we did not. We could even become profitable! 2. Y'all are right. I don't see the Quakes getting their own place any time soon (w/in the next 25 years). Land is exhorbitant out there. Spartan Stadium is a good size for MLS. Now if we could only a) get a good lease there and b) find some fans to start showing up to the games. 3, 4, 5. Yay for LA. Pray for Dal and NY. 6, 7, 8. Revs play in a stadium built with soccer in mind, owned by the owner of the team (Kraft). KC have the same setup, but without the soccer part, i.e., it wasn't built with soccer in mind. That said, Hunt is planning on building a new stadium for the Chiefs. It will have soccer in mind. After that he might even build them their own Caldron. And the Rapids are in the same boat as the Fire. They seem pretty happy where they are, so I don't foresee a SSS there soon. 9. Atlanta has an A-League team--the Silverbacks. 10. Des Moines has either an A-League team or a PDL team, I think the latter, and is building a 6,000 seat stadium. Iowa rocks! (I'm obligated to support it since my wife's from Ames. But really, don't you wish that was the norm rather than the exception?) 11. As to expansion, OK and Rochester look like they will have SSS if they enter, though OK might already have a stadium if they're in OK City. Seattle, if they enter, will play in Seahawks Stadium. Sigh. Toronto, though I doubt very much that they will get the politics solved in the next two years, would build a stadium if they entered.
It's a PDL team, and there's a lot of stuff that needs to be done before any shovels hit the dirt in Des Moines. But you're wrong about one thing, Iowa sucks, believe me, I had to live there for a year
I have heard nothing of this, and I listen to KC sports radio almost everyday. He is planning to do some renovations to arrowhead. The Wizards getting a SSS is dead for a few years.
Ooop. You're right. My bad. Forgot that it's renovations and not a new thing. But at least I remembered that there was some reason why he wasn't going to build a SSS soon. He sounded pretty hyped about SSSs after the World Cup. So Dallas is next for him I guess. Oh, and I lived in Iowa working in the corn fields during the summer of floods ('93). Yeah, it sucked. But I'd rather be in Iowa than Saskatchewan.
Yeah if I understand the situation right in KC, the Royals screwed the Wizards out of a bi-state tax. Originally the bi-state tax was to build a stadium in Johnson county on the Kansas side of KC and referb Arrowhead. But being a good MLB team and seeing money on the table actually not for them, they began threatening to leave if improvements weren't made to Kaufman. All of a sudden a SSS is out of the picture and a new proposed bi-state tax is made for Kaufman and Arrowhead. My understanding was that Hunt has really been wanting the referb of Arrowhead for a long time and if the Royals managment worked against him he may not get it, so he agreed to the new proposal (What do the Royals need it for anyways? Wasn't Kaufman referbed like 7 or 8 years ago, anyway?). Have they had the vote for the bi-state tax yet? I heard it might not pass anyway because when Johnson County agreed to a vote of a bi-state tax it was understood that the county would be getting something for it. No SSS could mean no money at all. Wouldn't that be a laugh.