Au Contraire. Again, he didn't have to offer a ranking. He wasn't asked, he put it out there and had no point of return. The Fire have more than enough going for it that doesn't require you to lie about it - state of the art stadium, competitive ticket prices, a good team on the field with a few super stars in the game, a lively crowd, ME (personal favorite) and so much more. A good salesman understands that you highlight the good. Hell, you don't even have to spin it as competing against the other sports. He's selling a product and based on that response if I were on the fence about purchasing it from him, I would have walked away. He didn't display confidence in the product he's representing and he's the top dog there - outside of the ownership group. Hell, it leads me to question his leadership ability and right now it's lacking. He just didn't sound like he was so pumped about his own product and if he feels that way then we will continue to under achieve when it comes to attendance.
The Sting used to outdraw the Bulls consistently. Not sure about the Hawks can't find their numbers. Jordan changed everything around. Goes to show that things can change rather quickly. I think soccer can be an easy number 3 in Chicago. The Bears and Cubs are too entrenched to surpass anytime soon. However, Soccer can easily surpass the Bulls, Hawks, and Sox.
He didn't have to lie at all. Here is the question: That may be true, but you also know there are plenty of Chicago sports fans who feel soccer is glorified kickball. How realistic is it to think the Fire can have a major impact? He immediately answers this by saying that the Fire are the sixth major league team in Chicago. Why? He could have said, "The Fire has ALREADY had a major impact. In just 10 years, we have grown into a state of the art facility that provides a fan experience as good as any in Chicago. We averaged 17,000 fans a game last year (I actually don't know the final number but that is close) in a facility comparable in size to the United Center AND we have reached a segment of the Chicago sports fan that was not being addressed by the other major sports. Our impact in the community will continue to grow as we have a long term business model that will take advantage of the world's most popular game and the demographic strength of our existing fan base." There was that so hard? As to selling out Toyota Park every game, we were actually getting near that until the bottom dropped out under the current "leadership." This year is a disaster at the gate. I said this earlier. Garber also comes from an NFL background, but he got it from day one. He always sells this league.
No one is disagreeing with you, but, as I said in my earlier post, what he needed to say is that the "Fire are 6th based on attendance" and then go on to outline how HE is planning to move the Fire up on the list and into the collective consciousness of the Chicago sports fan. That's what I found disparaging amount his remarks. As for piggybacking on the Olympics and World Cup bids, which people have complained about, of course, the Fire should piggyback on those bids. They are major international soccer tournaments. The Fire should piggyback on the Gold Cup (and international friendlies), too. Move a Fire game to Soldier Field, to create a doubleheader with a Gold Cup game. That is a little thought about reason why our attendance sucks so bad this year. In 2006, there was the Fire-Crew game and the Poland-Mexico game, EARLY in the season and drew 40,000+ fans. That incredibly skews the attendance for the first games (and, in fact, adds approximately 2,000 per game for the ENTIRE season). The Fire will never leave Toyota Park. If they did not for Beckham's first game in 2007 (oh, to have seen Thorrington score the winning goal in front of 40,000 instead of 22,000!), they will not for anything. The Fire could have a deal that if people buy a ticket to the Gold Cup, they get a Fire ticket free. I know there would be difficulty since USSoccer and SUM handle the Gold Cup, whereas MLS and SUM handle MLS games, but they have go to be creative. They point is, Greeley and the Fire must not do something, the must do EVERYTHING possible to get the word out and to generate enthusiasm for the team. Personally, I think it all begins with the local media. If the papers and the tv sports stations would treat the Fire with respect (simply report on the damn games, every damn game!), that would go a long way towards getting the Fire onto the Chicago sports landscape. Luis does his part for the Tribune, but he is blogging, as opposed to a "beat" reporter. I do give him credit for it, though. That is a start.
This has been discussed in numerous other threads. True, the Sting outdrew the Bulls in 1980-1983. Those were terrific years to be a soccer fan. Of course the Bulls only averaged about 8,500 a game until 1985. http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=CHI&lg=N However, the Sting have NEVER outdrawn the Fire in any year of the Sting's existence, though. In fact, the Sting averaged 8,080 per game for their entire existence. 1975 - 4,330 1976 - 5,801 1977 - 5,199 1978 - 4,188 1979 - 8,036 1980 - 11,672 1981 - 12,889 1982 - 9,377 1983 - 10,937 1984 - 8,376 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Sting
You missed my point. What I was suggesting is that soccer can and has out drawn one of the big five (so to speak). Thus there is no reason why it can't or won't happen again. I keep telling the athletic supporters on this board that they need to pray for the failure of the bulls, hawks, cubs, bears, sox, for the Fire's good. Chicago is desperate for a sports winner. They will even embrace soccer if they have to. With that sentiment, go Ducks or RedWings!
That's incredibly faulty logic. Regardless of what the other sports do, in future years can the Fire average 20,000 at Toyota Park? That's all that matters.
Yep, yep, and yep. TV ratings and attendance, not one other major league sports franchise in the City has had the impact with Latinos as we have, despite the tons more money and effort thrown into their individual marketing campaigns, and the community grows each year. You do realize that that you just upstaged a guy who has been making at least 6 figures a year in the business, right? I'd send a copy of your post and a link to the thread to Andy and Javier, just so they realize how badly the guy is fukcing up. Course, those nimrods would either stop the meetings with the press unless the questions are submitted previously, a sure sign that they are afraid and have something to hide, or hire a slick spokesperson to do the talking for them. Wait a sec.. you looking for a job?
He gets about 1 article a week, 2 if it's a slow a sports week and he has a human interested angle to push.
Yeah, wtf, man. Back to the old bullsh|t of Bears v Fire. Yeah, yeah, Dave, you said it before: NFL fans won't support a lawn-fairy team. It shows how fukced up he is about fans of either/both teams. Those who are not yet fans of both have tons in common. To begin with, both can't stand his ass and think he's an idiot.
I did not miss your point, I agree the Sting outdrew the Bulls and I loved as a Sting fan. AND to further expand on the matter, the Fire have outdrawn the Hawks for 6 of the past 8 years (prior to this season) and have a higher average attendance overall. Team Hawks Fire 2001 14,996 16,388 2002 15,568 12,922 (Bridgeview) 2003 14,794 14,005 (Bridgeview) 2004 13,253 17,153 2005 Lock out 17,238 2006 13,318 14,088 2007 12,727 16,490 2008 16,814 17,034 Average 14,498 15,665 http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Fire_(soccer)
Building on this a bit You can not truly sell what you do not understand..worse the majority of soccer fans are usually a combination of three things passionate, intelligent and protective. Quite simply they are too intelligent to put up with marketing speak, false promises and quip quotes...they see soccer as the alternative sport in the sports mad culture of the US true US soccer fans understand it is a crowded sports market... and as such fans collectively and individually have a personal protective stake in the sport which brings forth great passion and deep thought about how to build the game, so much so soccer becomes a major part of their life...if you are not a sincere leader (Dave G is not sincere) the fans will call you out and hopefully ownership will listen and get them out.
I'm leaning towards dumping him ASAP. I men like "shoulda never been hired in the first place" ASAP. Send the message to the fans that even know about him or even care that he is simply not Fire material before they send a message through the STH reps in the form of non-renewals that he isn't either. But an old business problem arises: who do you replace him with? I'd rather make the move with a candidate ready to go than keep the problem(s) continuing until the off-season. Let's hear names, folks, and no, PW is not and probably never will again be one of them, as much as I want him, too. He is the very model of what a modern General Manager should be, but in all honesty, he isn't unique. One thing to consider, though: even if the fans' candidates are great and have proven records, they must fit Andy's agenda of the direction he wants the team to go, and only him, Javier, and Greeley know exactly what that is. Course, if one of you jokers wins the Big Lottery and buys the team, problem solved. Buy both the Fire and CRS, merge the two, and offer Peter a huuuuuuge raise to oversee both. At least get him out of the trailer. It simply isn't fair to and doesn't benefit anyone for him to continue to lose the owner's money, make being a Fire fan an unpleasant experience, and fail in a job in a sport he won't be able to undertand until it is much too late. His tenure with us will not look good on his resume at all.
There were a few years there were the Sting, on average, had a couple thousand more people / game than the Bulls, but almost every year they were < 10,000 / game. The Blackhawks were drawing like crap 2 years ago too, but it wasn't because there were not 50 Blackhawks fans for every 1 fire fan in the area. The Fire don't just need to step up a level to be considered when people talk about the big 4... they need to step up several levels. I can't tell you how many people wearing Hawks jerseys I have seen this week. I get emails from people I don't really know saying "Go Blackhawks" at the bottom. The radio was full of people talking about Bulls/Celtics. Every Sox game is on in HD with pre and post game, plus radio. I think... in my entire life, I have seen 1 person wearing a Fire shirt (when not attending a soccer thing, or family event). It was a middle aged guy on the train. If I offered free tickets to the Fire to everyone in my department (15 people or so), I can almost guarantee you I would get no takers. I'm not trying to rip soccer or the fire, I am just being realistic. The Jordan analogy is faulty. a) Jordan was the best in the world b) Basketball didn't have a negative stereotype to overcome The best soccer players in the world are a 8 hour flight from here, and the best US born players are over there with them. If the next Ronaldo is playing for the Magic U8s, he'll be in Europe in 5 years. Soccer in this country doesn't have a neutral bais, it has a negative one. I'm sure everyone here has heard how it's a sport for wimps, foreigners, girls etc. I really don't know how this meme started, but it is real. In fact, the Fire president thinks this bias is so strong that "It's pointless to try and convert a Bears fan to be a Fire fan". Take that last sentence and replace "Fire" with ANY other Chicago sports team that isn't Soccer. I'm talking sox, cubs, hawks, bulls, arena football, lacross, rugby whatever... No one would ever say that about any other sport. It's only soccer. Right now the Fire draws only slightly more than the Wolves, so if you want to pass up the Blackhawks, you got MILES to go. It's not impossible, but you need a meteoric rise in popularity, interest, coverage, and sales.
He could've added: And for Chicagoans who like to watch winners, the Fire has won more national championships (MLS + Open Cups) in its existance than the Cubs, Sox, Hawks and Bears combined.
No offense but you're wrong and you're perceptions are what drives idiots like Greeley. Once you step out of lily white, suburban soccer, La Grange and go to areas like Hodgkins, Summit, Little Village, Pilsen, Cicero (nice Cicero banner at last game), Berwyn, you will find more people who may like soccer than hockey, basketball, football, and baseball. Once again, every excuse that has been used for the Fire's poor attendance, weather, date of game, location of TP, etc.. Is a bunch of bunk. People have no problem finding TP when a Mexican team, Beckham, or something else worthwhile comes. Has the location of TP affected attendance at Buffett and other concerts? There are tons and tons of soccer fans in Chicago dying to watch good entertaining soccer. Fact is they are not willing to pay to see the Fire's product so you have to change the product.
During the time that the Fire have existed? Not overall. While the Fire have existed, the Sox won a World Series. And that's it.
Ah, but you didn't say that. If you're using the Fire's existence as the timetable, you might as well throw the Bulls in as well. That would make it: Fire 5 - 2 All other major Chicago teams
One slight point of order, Basketball had a HUGE negative stereotype to overcome. In the seventies, it was seen as a sport where insanely rich, yet violent (see Kermit Washington) players with terrible drug problems (cocaine, pot, etc.), and awful family values (partying, kids out of wedlock, etc.) toiled in a sport that no one wanted to watch. Not too different than today's NBA, admittedly (except for the nobody wanting to watch part), however, back then, the media (and many people) severely disapproved of the NBA. The NBA Finals were not even shown on live TV, they were on tape delay on CBS. It was a very bleak time for the NBA. Attendance was terrible. I already posted what the Bulls averaged. The Atlanta Hawks averaged about 6,000. Cleveland about 5,000 and even the Celtics were only averaging about 13,000 in the 1970's. http://www.apbr.org/attendance.html It was not Jordan who caused this stereotype to be overcome, it as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and their rivalry in the 1979 NCAA Finals (and subsequently going to the Celtics and Lakers, both of whom won the following NBA Championships in 1981 and 1980) that began the NBA revival. Michael Jordan was the beneficiary of the beginning of this era of good feelings and certainly was the catalyst of the explosion of the NBA (along with other great players coming into the league and David Stern taking over the NBA). Other than that, I agree that soccer starts from a "negative bias," but it is a bias that can be overcome. Dave Greeley is not trying to help overcome that bias.