Burn going to Southlake for at least 2 years

Rent is $1 per attendee. Minimum $7000.

I assume it is too late for them to raise ticket prices like the Fire did in Naperville (allegedly, the Fire actually increased ticket revenues when they moved to Naperville, but the costs of the move (retrofit of stadium, bussing from remote parking, cash gifts to various interested groups in Naperville, a $100,000 grant to the school for construction of something or other) exceeded those increased revenues), so they're going to have to compensate for lower attendance with parking and stadium revenues.

Target seating is 12,000, no indication of SRO sales being a possibility or not.

Oh yeah, and no beer.

 

I supported the move earlier when I thought they were saving lots of money, but if these latest numbers are correct, it sounds like a strange move....

I think most fans would rather see them whack 100-125k in payroll then move to a 2nd rate stadium...

 

Rent is going to be between 7k and 12k, how can they not be saving tons of money. Was rent at the Cotton bowl that cheap?

 

$15K reportedly. But now they get to keep all of the ancillary revenue instead of a small portion. Only time (and people's willingness to buythings) will tell if it is a good move financially.

 

People will buy soda pop or sports drink instead of beer. Big deal.
Who gets the parking money? Any mass transit?

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/misc/index.htm?../OaklandRaiders/veryoldindex.htm

 

Closer to 500K savings= very good move
Closer to 100k savings= bad move

guess it all depends how it shakes out...

Certainly, with Naperville and now Southlake, MLS looks less "Major" (and what is that worth in $$$?, if anything), but if it is a pre-Frisco move for Burn, then things begin to make sense again..

 

Playing in high school fields screams of minor league! The only way this is o.k. is if a stadium is built in that two year time frame.

 

Jri you crack me up. Here I am thinking about how much extra money MLS will be making and you're thinking of how much they'll save. Just not an optimist are you?
The typical Burn game drew 13k last year, let's say the typical savings would be about $2000 a game (obviously not exactly)-- so I think it's safe to say that the rent savings is not a huge factor in this anyway (30k). Instead what it points to the importance of control over ancilary revenue.

If they charge 5 bucks for parking and there's 3000 cars, in four games, the revenue increase of 30k (because the Burn kept half before) will be as large as the total savings from rent. Then do the same for concessions. Just by running lowball figures, you can see the deal is worth at least a couple hundred thousand (though obviously, there might be costs like in Naperville).

Certainly, with Naperville and now Southlake, MLS looks less "Major" (and what is that worth in $$$?, if anything), but if it is a pre-Frisco move for Burn, then things begin to make sense again..
I've said it before, but some of the high school football stadiums in Texas are nicer than college stadiums. It is less "Major", but I'm sure the stadium's pretty nice.

 

Question, this field turf at Dragon Stadium, does anyone know if it has permanent football lines on it??? That would be minor league.

Financially probably a great move, that is if they get to keep all of the ancillary revenues (concessions, parking, etc). But from a fan perspective it doesn't appear to be appeasing to the die-hards. Well, either way there still in Dallas (close enough) and the product on the field will still be the same, who knows maybe it will turn out to be a better atmosphere (smaller, more boisterous)...everyone just needs to buy a flask.

Six months from now, flask sales might be through the roof in Dallas, I mean 23 miles north of Dallas!!!

 

After McKinney-Gate, I am not putting my eggs in the Frisco basket.

I still don't think it makes sense even if Frisco happens. You save $500,000 per year for 2 years but lose 3,000 or more fans per game in the process.

I know its not my money. But what happens if and when this Frisco thing fallas apart. Stay in high school or go back to the Cotton Bowl and start re-building attendance again.

IF Frisco is close to happening, if I were HSG I would bite the bullet for 2 years and not mess with my audience, knowing it was a short term loss.

 

Isn't Frisco almost as far away as Southlake? I know its NW of Dallas as opposed to more straight north, but are there really a lot of fans who are going to cotton bowl games but won't go to Dragon, who who then will come back to go to games in Frisco?

 

Lets take a good look at the economics...

Say they increase capacity to 13k and sell out every game.

So rent is 13k per game x 15 home games. = $195,000 in rent.

Part of the agreement is that the Burn get to keep ALL parking, concessions and merchandise sales at the stadium.
This is VERY key to the whole deal.

There are 1500 parking spots. A very conservative parking cost would be $5.

1500 x 5 x 15 = $112,500

Raise parking to $8... (still cheap) = $180,000.

The break even number on parking = rent is $8.67.

$10 for parking is very realistic (its what we pay in DC)

So everything the Burn make off of concessions and merchandising is pure PROFIT.

Take your 13,000 people, say the average person spends $10 (conservative estimate - no beer) on concessions and merchandise...

$130,000 in revenue A GAME take out your overhead (labor + materials = $30k)
The Burn has increased their revenue by $100k a game by moving.

Or... $1.5 million a year. Probably enough to put them close to turning a profit.

None of the articles mentioned it either, but I'm pretty sure the Burn will get to keep all stadium advertising (I don't know if they had to split it with the Cotton Bowl or not, but probably did).

So they increase revenues again there.

In total, by moving, the Burn have probably added at least $1.5 million to their bottom line, probably the difference between losing money and making money.

Sure, the plastic grass sucks. But the team and the league still survive.

 

All these numbers look lovely, but what happens if a lot of people JUST don't go to this bandbox of a stadium? Let's say they do pack the place, and your numbers are correct. At some point, even $1.5 million is NOT worth looking like complete and utter fools.

Major League Soccer-If you have a high school stadium with NexTurf, we will come.

Bush leagues, kids. Bush league.

 

What makes you think that just because the Burn averaged 13k a game, that they will be able to sell out every game?

I am expecting/hoping for an average of around 9000 at the new stadium since they have no ability to pull the average up with a single crowd.

Andy

 

This move screams that MLS better find some TV revenue and fast.

 

Move Dallas now.....again!

 

I'm sure the Burn did it just to piss everybody off, no other reason.

Don't forget, the Fire didn't realize any margins from the Naperville deal in the first year, because the capital improvements they had to make totally negated the ancillary revenue streams. Whether or not that will be the same deal for Dragon Stadium, we have no idea. If they're only adding 4500 seats or so, as opposed to the 10k or so AEG had to add to Cardinal Stadium (not to mention the buses they had to come up with to keep people from parking in downtown Naperville, which weren't cheap) along with everything else, maybe it will be better for them financially. Maybe it won't. But Chicago was starting from a slightly larger base of proven attendees than Dallas has had the last couple of years, so when they dropped 25%, they were still not last in the league. If Dallas loses 25% (and I have no idea if they would or not), that's a little different.

Again, there are some plusses and some minuses. Atmosphere is a good thing. Obviously, grasstroturf is not, nor are permanent football lines (if they have them there). But if it's an interim deal on the way to an SSS, then you live with it, and try to keep the whining to a minimum. God knows we had enough of that here last summer.

Good luck finding some TV revenue, too. Yeah, that'll happen. People are just dying to throw money at MLS for television.

 

When you look at MLS compared to NFL/MLN/NBA, how can you not think MLS is a minor league? Is it really the end of the world if MLS looks minor league? I'd prefer the league do whatever it can to be around as long as it can, instead of trying to measure up with the big boys.

 

KP- I am using net/net...you are certainly welcome to break it out by revenues increase/expense decrease..

Look, given the financial history of pro soccer and MLS, I think if one is going to err and be cautious (and use net/net lingo), the cost side makes more sense to me then the revenue side....Until TV and also SSS, the cost side of the equation (survival) is a bigger issue.

I currently live in Texas, and even have seen the Southlake stadium, I am well aware of the "professional" look of them, however, they are still minor league (compared to Cotton Bowl) anyway we put lipstick on the pig...

In the grand scheme of things (if Hunt/Anschutz are willing to fund 5+ more years of MLS, and get SSS for each team)..who really cares here....(except those having to drive to Southlake and not drink beer...Sure, no one wants to see it, but the near-term "hit" to the broader image of MLS is irrelevant if everything falls in place

 

No kidding, Sherlock. I am merely pointing out that these kinds of deals are done only because the league has NOT found a suitable financial TV deal.

 

Agreed, but with Naperville the end result was in sight. That's not the case here.

 

Seemed to me you implied that such a deal was possible. I don't believe there's any such animal, nor is there ever likely to be, and while it's possible and even likely that if there was another large source of revenue for the league, certain moves like this might not be necessary, that seems to me to fall into the same logical category as "If my mom had two wheels, she'd be a bicycle."

Not that we know yet.

 

Yes - the distance from the Cotton Bowl is about the same.

Well, there are a lot of fans who go to the Cotton Bowl who won't make the trip to Southlake or the trip to Frisco. Obviously, the big difference is that Frisco would attract many more new fans who won't be attracted to Southlake.

The Frisco stadium would essentially be the Burn's stadium and we wouldn't be subject to rules for high-schoolers. It would become an attraction in itself. The Burn in Frisco are likely to be part of a sports complex also housing the Texas Rangers AA club.

Unless you are HUGE Burn fan or are bored and living in Southlake, what attraction is there to see a temporary soccer team playing in a HS stadium? Not much.

I have good friends in Frisco. My sister lives in Trophy Club, right next to Southlake. Getting to Southlake is a pain in the ass from North Dallas. Getting to Frisco is a breeze.

 

I've never seen the southlake stadium, but it is probably nicer in many ways than the old cotton bowl. That stadium has lots of history and is very large, but it doesn't exactly scream "major" league.

Can anyone explain what southlake stadium looks like? Is it located on a high school campus, or in an isolated site? We have many stadiums in Houston which are shared by multiple highschools and are not located on a campus. Some even have upper decks and look very nice. It won't have great amenities, but it could work well if given a chance. The atomsphere at the games should improve greatly, and isn't that important at soccer matches?

As for the plastic grass, doesn't this stadium have a different product that in Naperville? I believe that the Naperville turf is the cheapest and worst of the next generation turfs, and that field turf is much better. Not as good as real grass at the cotton bowl, but better than real grass in the Meadowlands.