Yes, but I can't recall. I believe it's on the Green Army boards, let me go check... Dang it, it's not there. They also mentioned it during the broadcast of our last game. I'm thinking Grand Rapids. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in the west. I'll ask on our boards, someone will remember, I'll let you know.
The study assumes that 1. since they have X amount of teams they will need X amount of dollars to support them. This is untrue because the twins operate on one of if not the smallest Salaries in the MLB and stil they do very well. (cmon twins). Every team is different in opperating fees. Player salaries - cost for arena, stadium, etc alll are different. You can go see a twins game for 5 bucks, ride the train for $1.50 one way so $8 total. 2. It assumes that everyteam is always going to need to sell X amount of tickets to stay up. It in no way takes in account merchandise / tv / and other sponsorships to take in their money. It puts the fall all onto fans, and again its takes a national number rather than using an individual number for each team. If the study took individual market fees for each team, took into account how much each team gets in revenue OUTSIDE tickets and subtracted it to find how much they need based solely on ticket sales and used there personal income from each area then i would be more inclined to believe the study. And another factor comes up. Who is bizjournals?
Indeed it was. I settled down on the formula or Market Size + Available Market Size - Competition. Market size is based on how many MLS-sized franchises the market can support in total. Available Market size is based on how many MLS-sized franchises it can support with it's Available Potential Income. Competition is based on how many other franchises are in the market and their relative Income Threshold compared to MLS. Therefore a baseball team requires over five times the financial support of an MLS franchise and the competition factor is weighted as such.
Interesting study, although probably a little one-dimensional. The idea that Los Angeles could support seven new NFL teams but St. Louis can't support the Rams and Cardinals is frankly pretty silly. I like the idea of a team in Orlando, though - especially if Disney wanted to dip their toes in the sports-ownership pool again. There's already a massive sports complex inside Disney World, with plenty of room for a SSS...
All franchises are not created equal, you are right. However: They've used estimated revenues, which would go some way towards settling your idea of whether they've taken other revenues into account. It's not solely on ticket prices and it bases it on average ticket prices. Does everybody get $8 tickets at the Twins? However, it more readily illustrates problems with certain markets. Why do teams struggle in Tampa Bay? The disposable income simply isn't there. Sure, if you cut your cloth correctly, you'll still get a nice suit but what if the material just isn't there to begin with? As for who they are, they look to be an alliance of regional business newspapers. Based solely on generating enough revenues to pay the wage bill in its current form, yes. Do I believe even 10% of those markets could sustain MLS in the direction they want to head? Absolutely not. This is why I feel the only two really good expansion markets are Orlando and Hartford. They're not massive but they have the cash.
No not every ticket is $5 at twins games. But my point is while that yes they use estimated ticket price, the problem is they assume the only way to generate income is in ticket sales which is completely untrue.
No they don't they've used estimated revenues AND average ticket prices. Besides, the amount of people through the gate will generally give you an idea of how many people buy merchandise.
Des Moines, IA 100 39 91 98 100 , I dont think this also takes into account the shear number of semi pro teams either. Des Moines is home to semi pro , baseball, hockey x2, pdl soccer, and arean league 2 football. I just dont see mls in des moines i don't think the fan support is there. Nfl football sure. Iowa is definatly a football state and could see a team doing well there. Just thought this was odd was all.
This study was made over two years ago at the beginning of 2006. It didn't take into account any future growth of the league. MLS has grown tremendously in those two years, as seen by the steep rise in the expansion fee, from 10 million dollars in 2006 to its current 40 million. Anyone aware of the pre-2006 MLS world knows that the league might have taken in almost any city with an eager and semi rich owner. There was a much larger array of cities that would have been suitable for the league at that current value. But with the league's continuing rise in value, only those cities that could handle the increased growth are taken into consideration. At least, that's what I think Garber is doing.
Portland for sure has a great chance. Huge soccer city and with some improvements PGE park could be a soccer specific quick.
to correct you clown fan [yes, even on footie boards people bash isu], dsm has 3 pro teams, 1 junior team, 1 semi-pro team, and 1 amateur team. chops, cubs, and energy are all AAA pro. Bucs are junior, menace are amateur, and barnstormers are semi-pro. chops cubs and energy all make livable wages on their work. Bucs do not get paid a dime, menace players get jobs and a place to live, and spending $$$, and barnstormers make money but not enough to live off of (unless they live dirt cheap). if we got MLS, or anything pro except baseball, this town would support it. the only reason we average around 4-5K for our AAA clubs is because it isn't the big leagues. anyways, i agree a lot with that study, if a city got 1 pro team for them, a lot of those cities would be hotbeds. only one or two of those cities could support multiple pro teams.
Not trying to venture too far off the forum, but an NBA team in Des Moines? An NHL team? Get real. The only thing Des Moines could support is a team with a low amount of home games (NFL!) or possibly MLS but I'm not sure enough people in Des Moines care about soccer yet. Also, the Menace tried hard to get a stadium done a few years ago and it was unsuccessful. Obviously a new stadium would be necessary for an MLS team, who's to say it would get done in the future?
The reference to St. Louis doing 1k better then KC is in terms of attendance. No way the middle of America turns out 20k average for soccer. SL will get maybe 11k average per game tops. Thats a drain on the league, more so then new teams being required to sign a Torres type or a Riquelme or someone of that caliber and well known to international soccer fans. It doesnt have to be Henry, but just someone who has made it on the international stage...so when a fan in Europe is wishing for the Premier league or la liga to start up again he'll see Seattle vs NY Red Bulls or even Seattle vs. San Lorenzo (in copa libertadores, once we get in) and say: "hey, I think I'll how see such and such does against the argentines." I doubt very few European fans know of any members of any MLS roster, except for LA. As for LA, their model should be followed- stadium centrally located and a big name. I'm sure LA gals would be more then willing to pay the subsidies for their stadium, provided they can unhinge themselves from paying for financially-losing teams and recoup rent from Chivas USA. Trust me, when the financial worth rankings come out in OCT there will be three N.American teams on that list above 100million (Club Amer., Chivas Mex, and the Galaxy). As for the MLS of the Oakland A's, Quakes and A's owner Wolff paid 4.25mil for a 16yr old pitcher who wont even be able to play till he's 18. The quakes can afford a multi-million dollar DP. If they need more revenue, just play in the Oakland coliseum all the time, not just when beckham is in town.
Have you ever been to middle America or attended any soccer matches there? St. Louis regularly had 18-20,000 for INDOOR soccer. St. Louis had 22,000+ for college soccer. Hell, St. Louis even had 3600 for a Rapids Reserve vs. a Division II College team (the stadium capacity was < 3000, it was 104 degrees with 90% humidity at game time.)
I like the idea of a St. Louis franchise, but not the idea of another suburban based franchise, especially if it is out of state. Frisco is struggling, Commerce City could be better, and we all know what the sentiment is like in the Empire State over a "New York" team in the swamp (NFL being the exception; the NFL is untouchable and can do no wrong). We see on the horizon the same possibility in Chester, although I cannot lie and say that I know the proximities for these cities to the main city, but I do know that Toronto FC plays in a highly accessible area of the city and the results speak for themselves (I realize there is more to the story, but location certainly helps as well). Vancouver has plans for the waterfront, which is also very accessible, and incredibly scenic. Montreal, strangely enough, is in a part of town (Olympic Parc) that is VERY far from downtown but still draws extraordinarily well for the Impact. Location was blamed for the Expos demise (again, not the only factor by any means but certainly significant). My point is, I think a SSS plan in a depressed part of the actual central city is much more promising, especially for a sport that is still growing and people are much less likely to drive somewhere remote to see it. We have seen this same problem plague the NHL, even in Canada if you consider Ottawa a few years back. Only the National Football League can play in a city of 65,000 and draw 67,000 people. No one else.
The St.Louis stadium would be 8 miles from dowtown. You can actually clearly see the Arch from the site. It is also centrally located with regards to access. The site lies at the intersection of 3 major interstates, with a fourth and fifth only a few miles away in either direction. The stadium couldn't be easier or quicker to get to.
From now on, before you post, try this: Consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you don't have the first goddamn clue what you're talking about. It's a good way to keep yourself from saying asinine things in public.
I understand your concern, but I also think most people fail to understand St. Louis' downtown. People go downtown to work and see Cardinals/Rams/Blues games. That's it. If there is no game, downtown area is dead at 6:00pm. No one is there. No one goes downtown to socialize unless a game is involved. You have to remember that St. Louis City only makes up about 10% of the area's population. The population of the downtown area is probably only 10% of that. A large portion of St. Louis City is in fact suburban - not urban. Our downtown area is just over 1 square mile.
I think, as you probably know, that his point is that for most cities in the US the urban area is in the center of the suburban area. I mean, that's the point really, the suburbs sprawled out from the city center. And when you place the stadium in the center of the population area you're most likely putting yourself in the best place to draw the largest attendance. Plus, there should already be existing transportation infrastructure, etc. Well, at least that's the general idea. If you place the stadium far from downtown, and I'm not just talking about St. Louis, you risk alienating fans on the other side of the city.
Besides all the good strip clubs are on the Illinois side of the river. People go to those in droves out there in STL. They need bewbs at the STL park and all will be well. I think St. Louis is a great spot for MLS with the stadium plan as is.
On Sport Billy's comment on Downtown STL (i realize you arent arguing a point im just commenting on MSP metro area) not true for Minneapolis. Yes most of the population lives in suburban cities over 2mil in the case of Minneapolis - St Paul - Bloomington Metro. What Sport Billy said about the downtown being completely dead if there is no games doesnt apply here. There are 4 major lakes in Minneapolis, Calhoun, Isles, Harriot and one other that are almost always full of walkers, bikers, etc. Uptown, just north of Edina is always full of people, there are theatres resturants, night clubs. you name it has it. Also downtown Minneapolis also has theatres resturants and night clubs that see good business. On silentounce's comment I believe that a stadium built in Bloomington could well support a MLS team with 494 interstate, 35-W, interstate 169 and Highway 77 all converging in it (all of these are major links to the south suburbs from MSP). The population of Minneapolis is spreading south and this is one of the main reason why Thunder dont draw big crowds, the north suburbs arent as heavily populated and for some people it would take almost 2hrs to get to a game (thats from the metro area). Plus the Mall of America is located in Bloomington which already attracts national and international crowds, so having a soccer team that close would draw some tourists to see the game, probably not a lot but i say at least a few would venture over. Not every Suburban Area would be bad for an MLS team, it all depends on the individual city and its surrounding suburbs. But i agree that a wiser choice would to build a city stadium (or tier 1 suburb) rather than a suburb stadium.
I understand that. But in the case at hand, you need to drive another 8-10 minutes past downtown. You'd spend that trying to get to a parking spot in downtown St. Louis. Also, Collinsville will have flat parking rather than the garages in downtown. This will provide for great tailgating and thus a better overall fan experience.