Here's the latest from the D&C. It's pretty much the same skeptical message that the D&C has been pushing along. The one new twist is that the local neighbor groups are now behind the project full force. http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/0419DF3VBD6_news.shtml
Here's the latest from one our local sports hacks. Bob is well known for his "rip and read" writing style, but it appears he may have actually picked up the 500-pound phone and made a phone call or two. Bob speculates that Kansas City or Dallas might be moved to Rochester given Lamar Hunt's visits over the past few years. From my point of view, Dallas is a no-go since the new stadium is supposedly under way (despite only drawing 7K for the home opener---path-e-tic.) KC has no soccer stadium or one in the works, so Bob surmises the Wizards may be the ones to move to Rochester. My take is that Donovan will wrap up with SJ, move oversees and the Earthquakes will become the Rhinos. Yes, it's just a gut feeling, and I have quite the gut. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/sports/columns/0425SU41LLQ_sports.shtml
How would MLS benefit from moving a team into an established market following the Rhinos? IMO, no way this happens. Hunt owns Arrowhead and has no reason to move out. SJ will be able to grow their fan base somewhere in the Bay Area and winning championships will just help that. Dallas is getting a stadium and there is no reason to move them. It would be a great folly for MLS to move an existing team to Rochester.
I agree with your premis, but Hunt does not own Arrowhead Stadium. It's owned by the Jackson County Sports Authority. Hunt's lease for the Chiefs allows him to provide the stadium to the Wizards for virtually no rent. This is why an SSS is such a hard sell in KC.
You know, I wouldn't rip those of you in Rochester so often if you didn't make so many dopey statements in your ongoing effort to prove that you belong in MLS. In other words, bull$hit doesn't strengthen your case tremendously. When a guy who actually gets paid a living wage to write about this stuff for a living writes the following garbage... ...how can we take those of you in the boondocks of western New York seriously? Here's how the Wizards and Burn have suggested that they don't belong in the league: Dallas Burn: 2003: Uh, I'd just as soon forget about it. 2002: 13,122 (7th out of 10) 2001: 12,574 (8th out of 12) 2000: 13,102 (7th out of 12) 1999: 12,211 (10th out of 12) Between 1997, when they drew 9,678 a game, and late 2002, the Burn had steadily grown their attendance 36%. Of course, Hunt Sports Group decided to flush that down the crapper with the single most monumentally stupid self-inflicted wound in league history known as "Dragon Stadium." Still, that doesn't sound to me like a team that HSG is about to pull up the stakes on, especially when they're getting a brand-new stadium in under a year. And as for "soccer tradition," there have been a grand total of two years since 1967 when Dallas didn't have a team in the highest professional league at the time. Those years are 1982 and 1983. This is also a city whose utter lack of soccer tradition got them several sellouts when they were a venue in 1994, undoubtedly due to the fact that they hosted several matches featuring such ethnically compatible national teams like Bulgaria, South Korea, Nigeria, Spain, Bolivia, and Germany. Yeah, the massive Bulgarian ex-pat community in North Texas made those games a hot item. Incidentally, I loved YOUR analysis: "Wow, the City of Frisco, Collin County, and Frisco ISD chose in early 2003 to spend $50 million on a stadium for a team that had grown its attendance 35% over the previous five years and had averaged 13,000 a game the previous year. If only they had known that the Burn would draw 7,300 for a single game in 2004, they might have thought twice." Simply brilliant, Sparky. As for the Wizards: 2003: 15,573 (5th out of 10) 2002: 12,255 (9th out of 12) 2001: 10,954 (10th out of 12) 2000: 9,112 (11th out of 12) 1999: 8,183 (12th out of 12) A 90% attendance increase over four years. Yeah, that's another team that's on the way out. Honestly, that was spectacular analysis by Mr. Matthews. The real shame of it is that it was in an allegedly reputable mainstream print media outlet. It's no wonder that Rhinos fans get the impression that they're the biggest soccer town in North America, when people who should know better are implying to them that the two top candidates for relocation to the nirvana known as Rochester are the Dallas Burn (who had been growing their attendance steadily until you-know-what and is getting a stadium built for them as we speak) and the Kansas City Wizards (who also have been growing their attendance steadily, drew 15,000 a game in 2003, and already have a revenue-friendly stadium deal). And although I ripped you earlier, your analysis was a little better than Mr. Matthews. If anyone moves to Rochester, it's going to be the Quakes. Even still, all the rumors with them have included Club America buying them and moving them to Houston.
Dammit, ElJefe, you beat me to way too many points. I love the part about "Oh no, there's no SSS on the next bi-state, and considering the fact that Lamar has actually visited and liked our city, it must mean he wants to move the Wizards to Rochester." Kudos to you. You've just made a jump across the Grand Canyon to reach a conclusion. Anyone who believes any part of that article needs serious psychological help.
Here's a look from Engerland. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=299371&cc=5901 BTW, PTP is about 1/2 mile from Frontier.
Does anyone have actual cost figures on the Field Turf vs. grass for a stadium? I've seen posts about it being more money up front, but cheaper in the long run, but no one seems to know how much is being saved. And I'd like to think if they got grass, and as such into MLS, in the long run they'd make enough money to water and repair the real thing.
My buddy in the turf business tells me Rochester could spend about $750,000 for the turf, and will save about $65,000 a year in man hours, watering bills and re-seeding. Additionally, the yard would be able to host more events, and if the Rhinos' organization gets any of the rent from that, they'd be able to generate more revenue that way. A grass field might cost $250,000 to put in, and $65,000 a year to maintain (depending on where you are), but you couldn't have nearly as many events on the surface. And if you're running the building (are the Rhinos going to run the building?) you want to be able to have as many events there as you reasonably can (while not adversely affecting your core business, obviously).
If this is so, I hope the money made from other events makes up for staying in the A-League. If so, then fine. I think the local taxpayers would be shortchanged though for their contribution.
Just to play devil's advocate, what is the cost of maintaining the artificial turf per year? I will assume it is not maintenance-free. The Rhinos (or stadium owners) would need to hire a maintenance crew just the same. The argument re: ability to hold more events on an artificial surface, if true, would seem to seal the deal there.
I don't think there's any question that they can be more profitable by using artificial turf. But is that the sole purpose of this stadium? To make money? If they were to put in grass, spend the necessary money to keep it in good shape, have other events spread out over the course of the year, they would be profitable. And it would be real, honest-to-goodness, soccer being played in that soccer stadium. Of course, it they only care able making loads of money from this place, why not build it to accomodate baseball, and have that minor league baseball team play there as well?
Because they have a baseball stadium in Rochester. It's 8 years old. The Rhinos have been playing in it since 1996. And aesthetics are nice, but not everybody can afford them. And when you ask the public to contribute a good chunk of the money for a stadium, most of them don't really care if it's honest-to-goodness soccer or just soccer being played in the stadium. Sucks that it becomes a money issue, but unless you can just pay for the whole thing yourself and not worry about how quickly you make the money back, it is what it is.
What about that mix of grass and artificial grass that many stadiums use, including the Bernabeau in Madrid. Is that in the running?
I was told once too and posted many moons ago on this thread that's what the Binghamton Mets use in their stadium. Can't tell you if it's true or not.
I'm told that the annual maintenance costs on a FieldTurf field are very, very low. Extremely low. Like less than a couple grand low.
Field turf may well be inexpensive, but astroturf - the old horrible stuff - was as expensive or more to maintain than grass. A zamboni-type machine was required to keep the field clean and free of debris.
I understand they have a stadium. That wasn't my point. It's not aesthetics I'm worried about. I don't mind football markings. That's aesthetics. When players have to wait for the ball to stop bouncing, that's not aesthetics, that changes the game. Sure, not as much as old-time astroturf, but ift makes a difference. If my tax money were going to build a soccer stadium, I expect them to do it right, and have a stadium that is still considered nice 10 years down the road. This isn't about paying off the stadium. DuRoss gets this thing basically for free. Paetec naming rights and a grant from the state will not be paid back whether DuRoss profits 3 million or if he profits $100,000. Sure, more events mean more tax money, but come on, this was a stadium that was supposed to help put Rochester on the map, not to spur development and direct tax revenue. Sometimes you have to pay the extra $$ to do something right(Southlake). Many times, you can't, and I uderstand that. But in this situation, DuRoss can do it right, but he sees the gold mine in front of him, and his soccer stadium is now a stadium in which soccer can be played, albeit on turf.