What bothers me is that this guy didn't even attempt to do any research. http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=Sports&action=getComplete&ref=569 Issue #1) Pittsburgh had a winning team this season, 15 wins, 9 losses, 4 draws. Issue #2) How can he mix baseball and soccer stadiums?
Yes, houdguy, I agree. Hounds fans (and the owner) should be howlin' mad over this article. I can see the young writer's point about baseball and its stadium-building craze. I whole-heartedly agree... as far as it deals specifically with baseball. What the Selig mentality has done is little short of a crime to those of us who were raised on the game. Including soccer on the stadium "need" issue... specifically the Pittsburgh team... is adding oranges with apples, since the "need" regarding soccer is the incompatibility of the existing traditional American sports facilities. I believe those of you on this board know that, so I apologize for insulting anyone's intelligence by even mentioning it. Someone in Pittsburgh SHOULD bring it clearly to the attention of the young writer of the P-G article. Also, I was under the impression that the Hounds owner was not going to draw blood from taxpayers for his facility as the baseball & football ogres have. It appeared that the Hounds facility would be giving something BACK to the community (youth fields & programs). Are the Bucs, Steelers, Indians, Orioles, doing as much? Oh, sorry for grouping soccer in with baseball & football. The writer was grabbing at one straw too many to support his theory, and chose inappropriately in including the Hounds. Convoluted thinking and, yes, completely and obviously lacking research. He has made a public ass of himself in print. My only thought, soccer fans: Is that punishment enough? I'm mad as hell, the more I think on this. What the Hounds were willing to do doesn't even compare to the "needs" currently being expressed in Rochester or Chicago or Newark (or wherever). Somebody mail that boy at the P-G some cat poo.
I don't know, I read the article yesterday and didn't think it was all that bad. While he doesn't mention that the Hounds went on a tear at the end of the season (which would actually help him prove his point because it helped increase attendance down the stretch), it's more an article about stadia than it is about soccer. For me, the most interesting part of the article as far as soccer goes is this: That's a testimony to the local fans, if anything. Besides, Amato is a fan of the game and the team. While his column in the City Pages (and when he writes for them, it's as a columnist, not a reporter) is usually about other sports in the city, he'll weigh in on the Hounds a couple times a year, usually pretty well. While this column is a bit scattered, it doesn't strike me as an attack on the team or on soccer.
I just think it's funny that he says that the Cubs are surviving well in Wrigley because they're winning. 58 years with good attendance and no pennant says that maybe he should take another look at that piece of the argument.
Exactly, Dr. W., it was more an article about stadia than soccer... and IMO he should've kept the Hounds situation out of it. It's not like Rochester. Perhaps too tempting as a natural intro for a timely article to bother with all the facts. And I agree with the theme: Save the Browns/Indians/Cavs/Whatever, the hell with our schools and neighborhoods. Can the next generation be as stupid? Chances are, those Hounds that played so well on a ridiculous field might have done better on a regulation pitch (of course, the other team would benefit as well... see Columbus). I'm not chummy with the Pittsburgh owner, but seems it's to his credit as much as the fans that he has kept the thing going more than those "two years" despite getting kicked out of one neighborhood or the other with his complex plans. In spite of the realities of Joe Bob America, soccer truly "needs" something other than baseball or high school football parks to play upon... whether it be an HDC or a Metropolitan Oval. Actually, the kid's article opened a fresh kettle of fish. Soccer promoters will need to be very creative, careful, and generous in plotting out SSSs. After getting financially (expletive depleted) by the NFL, MLB, NFL, NBA owners' "needs" over the past decade, taxpayers won't be ready to become overnight soccer supporters (with possible exception of Rochester or OKC). "Bart" Wolstein may have to go it alone (with private investors) with his SSS in Cleveland. Humorous yet sad thought, Cleveland might get MLS, whether Clevelanders want it or not... Whether they'll even realize it or not. Hopefully the Plain Dealer sports columnists will be bit more careful with their facts in crafting their soccer-related sarcasm.
I find this even more ironic after just hearing Mario "Crybaby" Lemieux saying that this is the last year for the Penquins in Pittsburgh if they don't get a new arena. Would somebody tell this guy that the city - thanks partially to funding stadia that the voters did not want! - is on the verge of bankruptcy? And, as I've mentioned before (in this forum?), it's because of Mario Lemieux that indoor soccer folded in Pittsburgh. Forgive me if I hold a grudge.
Crybaby? I don't blame him. The Penguins at least won the Stanley Cup a little over a decade ago. Why shouldn't the county/city build them an arena? They built two great stadiums for the Pirates and Steelers, who've scarcely had a whiff in 25 years. If I'm Lemieux, I'm thinking, "What am I, something special? What am I, a schmuck on wheels?" Mind you, I don't think government should ever build stadiums/arenas for what is largely the benefit of professional sports franchises. Case in point, the Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins, and Celtics all play in privately-financed facilities, the first three owning their venues. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since they stroked the Pirates and Steelers, I don't think the Penguins deserve any less.
Did you miss the part about "the city being on the verge of bankruptcy?" That's what Lemieux doesn't seem to understand. Now, maybe the laid-off police officers (pretty close to a couple hundred) and other soon-to-be ex-city employees could get construction jobs, and then they can work as ushers in the stadium until it begins to produce revenue for the city and then get their old jobs back, but that's not likely. In any case, you haven't had to see Mario on TV. He's been acting like a clueless pinhead on this issue.
Ah yes, the old I've jumped off the bridge before without getting hurt so why not do it again argument. Nice.
The sun would continue to rise & the city would survive without the Penguins. It's just my guess that any city would be better served by adequate safety forces rather than a pro hockey team. As for pacifying Mario just because Pittsburgh did it for the Bucs and Steelers: Three wrongs don't make a right. I loved the Penguins while growing up... sat among the few thousand who attended back pre-Mario & often darkened the door of Duane Rupp's hockey shop out past Mt. Lebanon. But I grew up & became a taxpayer. The Pens will be far from the only big-time sports franchise going down should the next generation of voters grow wiser than mine.
The Penguins can join the new WHA slated to face off in 2004-2005 (Pittsburghs already slated for a team). http://www.worldhockeyassociation.net/
There are also some good replies to this issue here: http://www.usldiscussions.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=25;t=000798\ This is the Pittsburgh Riverhounds forum - "Article in the City Paper" thread. In the end, this country definitely needs soccer stadiums in order to assist with this sport's growth, but not even new baseball stadiums will save that sinking ship.
9,342# 16,967 27,337 34,861 9,696* 8,565** 36,698 27,925 36,542 That's last night's attendance at Major League Baseball games. I think they're doing okay. I can't think of an American soccer team that would be sure to draw even the lowest of those numbers on a monday night, SSS or not. #at Detroit, a team on course to lose 120+ games *at Montreal, a team that's on the chopping block or ready to move. **at Pittsburgh, a team that's sold all its good players.
Only one MLS game played on a Monday night -ever - so hard to judge. However, 17 games played on a Tuesday, skewed somewhat by 5, 4th of July games, for a 17,814 average. However, that's not the point. The point is that MLB is "broken" and on a downward spiral - MLS is not. Those baseball attendance figures are nice, but not the entire story. Everything is relative. The bottom line: Is there more money coming in than going out? For MLB, who were in the black for decades upon decades, they are now in the collective red and getting worse. Yes, MLS is also in the red, but we are moving in the right direction which is why MLS owners and the league are still eager to venture forward. I'd rather have an average of attendance of 10,000, and be making money, than boast attendances of 36,000+ and be losing boat-loads of green backs. I can't post the correct link to my first post on this thread (if someone can, please do). However, as one poster in that USL discussion mentioned, the all-time, per-game, attendance highs for the NFL, NHL and MLS (not counting the first year anomaly) is the most recent 2-3 years. The all-time high for MLB is a decade ago. As long as MLB does not have a strong salary cap or a strong team revenue sharing system, further strikes, bankrupt teams, etc. will be the order of the day - after all, we can't all be the Yankees and the Braves. In the end, stadiums will help soccer increase their attendances / returns - Other than a couple-year blip, like the PNC did for the Pirates, it will not help cure baseball's deep-rooted problems. For MLB, it's simply a band-aid that's slowly coming off in the bath.