Good idea, really. Colorado hasn't hosted any of the big events for the MLS yet, and Colorado is leading the league in attendance this year. Denver has always been willing to support big games, in all sports, it makes sense that the MLS would finally consider Colorado for hosting a major event like this. The new Mile High stadium is nice and it will make a good venue for the match, especially if we can get 50,000-60,000 or so there.
Why not Denver ? Crap it's been every where but the middle of the country. Denver would be a great place for the All Star game.
Well considering LA is already touting the MLS Cup/All Star Combo as part of their season ticket package for next year, I'd think that Colorado quote has to be old, or there's going to be some trouble in the PR front. New stadium in LA + MLS Cup + All Star Game + 4th of July in Rosebowl == single season highest attendance average excluding 1996.
I thought LA has 2003 MLS Cup and 2004 All-Star Game. They tentatively gave 2003 All-Star Game and 2004 MLS Cup to Dallas back when they thought the McKinney stadium would be there.
The story is from Wednesday, and he supposedly said it on Monday. MLS Awarded the 2003 MLS Cup to the Galaxy on February 27 of this year. I thought LA was supposed to get the 2004 All-Star Game as part of the deal, which would make more sense just in case there are construction delays. The fact that MLS folks are also quoted in the article and they apparently didn't tell the writer that "LA already has the 2003 game" tells me something as well. The Cup and All-Star attendances wouldn't count in the average anyway.
I think only teams with their own soccer-specific stadiums should host the All-Star Game (to maximize additional revenues). Columbus in 2003 LA Galaxy 2004 It would also add an extra incentive on building new stadiums
First I've heard of this (All Star in CO), but I rarely pay attention to the All Star Game, so take it for what it's worth.
And then......Columbus again, and then LA again... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Spend $40-$50 million just so that you can hold an All-Star Game that will generate, what? A half-million dollars in ticket revenue? Three-quarters of a million? And additional revenues of what? Another quarter million? "Hey, it's going to take maybe three years to get this whole stadium thing done, but we have a chance to host the All-Star Game if we can get it done in two years, so let's really push it, okay?" Are you like fifteen years old, or what?
I saw a quote somewhere - will have to dig later and find it - where Garber said MLS was breaking with tradition and having the ASG and Cup at the same site in 2003 because the LA stadium was such a significant thing.
If he did, it wasn't mentioned in the press release on the Galaxy site saying they had MLS Cup 2003. Maybe Garber just mumbled it in the hall and Mr. Rumor picked up on it.
Take it easy, dude. This is NOT a demolition derby. Although, as someone pointed out, I did put a at the end (which a 15-year old would have noticed), if your think about what you just posted you'd see how foolish your statement is. Indeed, if you build a stadium for $40 million, an annual $1 million (to use your number?) is a HUGE extra. If you think about financing the initial $40 million over 30 years, $1 million additional income (which you woudn't have otherwise) would almost cover half of your annual mortgage. I realize most people can't grasp numbers in access of their car payment, so here it is leaving out the 000's so that even 15-year olds can understand. If you borrow $40 dollars for 30 years, $1 in debt repayment is a HUGE number.
Apologies. That was too harsh. But still, that's a million (maybe) in revenue, not profit, and I doubt seriously it's a HUGE incentive in and of itself to spend $40 million to build a stadium.
Apologies accepted. In the case of an All-Star Game, revenue for a soccer-specific stadium almost equals profits, because there is no significant offsetting costs for say parking revenues (therefore almost 100% profit), etc. Players only get $2,000 from the league to play, so no payroll expense. Most everything for an MLS team is fixed costs (stadium rental, payroll, etc.) So getting the All-Star Game and MLS Cup (as Galaxy will next year) can easily mean $2 million in profits. $2 million is a lot of money for any MLS team and ignoring all other factors, your stadium is paid for in 20 years! I would say that is a HUGE incentive!
Now it's $2 million profit all of a sudden? If MLS made $2 million profit off the game in Columbus in 2000, then you've convinced me. However, $2 million a year for 20 years isn't going to pay off a $40 million stadium because of the interest.
I don't know how they divvy things up, but MLS certainly has an overhead that has to be dealt with. I would imagine a "league event" like the Cup or the All-Star Game gets put under the purvey of the league and they probably take an inordinate amount of money from and responsibility for it (I could be wrong). It's not quite like the Big 10 or something where you get 1/11th of all the bowl game money, because while Penn State and Northwestern are separate entities, the Galaxy and Revs are only quasi-separate entities. I'd be amazed if there was a $2 million profit from an All-Star Game to begin with, much less that the league would earmark all of it to pay off one team's stadium.
according to Don Garber's State of the League Address, both MLS Cup and the All-Star Game will be played in LA. I think this is bull, LA should get either one or the other, not both. Keep the tradition of one city gets one event and another city gets the other event.