Allocating savings

Discussion in 'FC Dallas' started by gotyourback, Oct 22, 2003.

  1. gotyourback

    gotyourback Member

    Jul 18, 2002
    Sucklack has sapped not only the fanbase of the Dallas Burn, but it may steer ownership into a deeper scrimp-and-save mode relative to salaries.

    The initial theory of moving to Sucklack was to save on expenses and learn how to run a similar model of a Frisco stadium, concessions, and market, but...

    Will it make any difference to the team that takes the field come Frisco 2005?

    If the resulting poor numbers of the Dragon 2003 season are carried over to forecasts for 2004, would it make sense to make as many further cutbacks so Frisco will be a fresh start? Is the Frisco project so innovative and new to the Frisco market that they'll invest in MLS no matter what the salaries are for the players? Is the Frisco market discriminating enough to care about the quality of play that takes the field come 2005?

    Surely HSG knows that most of the veterans aren't thrilled about the prospect of playing at Sucklack one more season.. How feasible is it to dump all the veterans and field a minimum salaried team?
  2. ChrisE

    ChrisE Member

    Jul 1, 2002
    Nat'l Team:
    American Samoa
    What would a minimum salaried team be? You release Pareja, Kreis, Deering, Bonseu, etc., but you've still got Gbandi, Johnson, Thomas, Davis, Vaca, Countess, etc. on what I would imagine are pretty sizable contracts (by MLS standards). What is the maximum that they could save by dropping all the veterans, maybe one million dollars?

    Although HSG showed with the move to Southlake that they're very interested in the bottom line, I think they envisioned this move turning out far, far better. I seriously doubt they would have made it had they realized the repercussions it would have on attendance and on their reputation as owners. And I think that the terrible experiment that is Southlake will make them far, far less likely to make any moves like this that would further damage the product simply to improve the bottom line. I don't think there's any reason we can't field a competitive team next year, and I would suspect that HSG would be far happier moving into a stadium with a .500 team than with a team that set new MLS records for futility, which would almost certainly be the case if they dropped all the remaining talent from this crummy team.
  3. gotyourback

    gotyourback Member

    Jul 18, 2002
    Actually, the releasing of much more expensive contracts could've been part of the Sucklack plan all along. After a year at the relative inexpense of Sucklack, and the insurgence of the much less expensive youth that you've mentioned, it makes perfect breeding grounds for rebuilding an organization.

    Maybe this 'end' is just the 'start' of a great Burn future at Frisco.

    Frisco Marlins?..

    No, Burn the Fish!

    Sorry, Carlos. :D
  4. akimmel

    akimmel New Member

    May 19, 2003
    To answer at least part of your original question, I think the organization will get a one-two year "pass" from the suburban soccer mom "fan". They will go just to go, and the vast majority won't know what a good team looks like. As the newness wears off and you are left with a smaller, yet more dedicated fanbase, the team will have no choice but be concerned about the product on the field. Unfortunately, I think that HSG knows this having gone through a stadium opening in Columbus. I can see them not being too concerned with the product on the field, knowing that they will have a big boost when they open Frisco regardless.

Share This Page