I ask about Aloha Stadium in that if you built a MLS-sized venue it would only be a matter of time before Hawaii football moves in too not to mention a lot of other events for better and worse.
Absolutely irrelevant to what was being discussed. To remind you, Aloha Stadium was raised as a concern and I replied by highlighting that teams often come into MLS either in a new stadium or with one scheduled to be built. As such, Aloha Stadium would simply be another excuse not based in reality. Different cities where teams came in with new stadiums (or stadium plans) were then listed. You, bizarrely, mentioned New England, Seattle and Atlanta, as if they were relevant. New England was an original MLS team, not an expansion team. Seattle was playing in a stadium that was designed for soccer and was fairly new (and would be the only one of the three to have any degree of relevancy, although expansion considerations changed over the years). Atlanta was a perfect example of a team joining MLS and having a new stadium to play in. You were simply trying to change the topic to NFL teams sharing stadiums with MLS teams, which is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. It's not like a team in Hawaii would be sharing a stadium with a team from the NFL! (College yes, but there is a lot of precedent of MLS teams sharing stadiums with a variety of sports). But you have every right to divert conversations to your pet grievance, no matter how irrelevant they are to the discussion or pointless to begin with.
You just love nit picking about everything. How about stands that move back to fit a 120 x 75 yard field, they have their locker rooms and yes they did design it to make it look good when downsized.
It's mildly annoying how few people understand that expansion values are intricately linked to SUM. The good news is that the $200 million price tag suggests a growth in the value of soccer games played/televised in the nation.
If it's mildy annoying then care to explain how it works? I've seen here in BS that people say that MLS is losing money yet now somehow they "lose" money with the team but make money elsewhere i.e. in selling jerseys, tickets etc.
Alright, well, first of all, many people who claim that MLS teams are losing money are usually sourcing Don Garber, who is the one person you shouldn't listen to on the matter because he has an interest, as a representative of the owners, to ensure that the owners come out ahead in any CBA negotiations. With that out of the way, let's tackle the Ponzi schemers. In their world, they believe that credible owners, with billions in their pockets, have somehow been duped into buying into a Ponzi scheme. The argument is that MLS is lossmaking, its TV deal can't support it, and that it relies on expansion fees to stay afloat by duping successful billionaires into spending $150m on franchise fees. The first problem with this is assuming that billionaire investors are that stupid. Ponzi schemes typically take advantage of uninformed people who aren't successful investors - not billionaires who would spot a terrible investment from a mile away. Why are they spending money then? I'll get to SUM in a second, but it's worth pointing out that some investors certainly are keen on land grabs. That seems to be the case with Burkle and Sacramento. MLS teams can serve as anchors for development sites. But the bigger attraction may the land and the surrounding area development that comes with that. On to SUM. Instead of me explaining it, I'll paste a piece that was written on this a while back, as it does a better job than I could. https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/201...-us-soccer-presidential-election-kathy-carter For an even more in-depth breakdown of how SUM operates, go here: https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/01/25/sum-soccer-united-marketing-garber-gulati-carter To cut a long story short, MLS investors buy into SUM to get a piece of a commercial enterprise that makes money from a host of soccer properties outside MLS. Even if MLS clubs were to lose money, the owners would almost certainly be making money through SUM as a whole. And they can cry poor saying their teams are losing money to keep salaries down, all the while making money through SUM. In saying that, the owners also invest in salaries and players to grow MLS, so owners are committed to growing MLS, but the overarching point is that while they may be buying into MLS on the surface, they're also buying into a more lucrative pie overall in the form of SUM.
NOAA says there is 1 world ocean (obvious when planet is seen from space) but historically and for reasons of geography we divide the world ocean into distinct ocean basins. Historically there were 4 ocean basins (Atlantic,Pacific,Indian,Arctic) , in modern times we have also recognized the Southern Ocean as the body of water surrounding Antarctica and extending up to the line of 60 degrees latitude. oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html
<rant> The fixed decor for the venue is 50/50 and Falcon fans won't say otherwise. The volume of electronic media also ensures a slate of top-rate United-oriented video productions throughout each match. There are separate locker rooms for both sets of soccer teams and gridiron teams. They made sure to include the team access at the middle of the pitch. There's a soccer ball statue outside to balance against the falcon statue, which is clad in a giant AU scarf for every match. The fan shop has sold more AU gear than Falcons gear since opening. No one attending an AU match will feel like we're trespassing on Falcons territory. I get the angst felt in New England and the spectre caused by the 1.0 era, but I'm sick of this myopic perspective serving as an absolute rule. MBS works for MLS in Atlanta and it works exceedingly well. Given all the other issues at the feet of pro soccer in the US this doesn't even warrant being on the radar. If some people don't like it then bully for them but that's a matter of taste and not one of actual performance. Anyone acting like soccer's being short-changed by Uncle Arthur is speaking out of ignorance. </rant>
I would feel better about Mercedes Benz Stadium if the teams were playing outdoors on grass, the way both versions of football were intended to be played.
Like in that maelstrom endured by Atlanta and Columbus? Or the freezing temps across many venues this winter? I get it and fully hope we'll see indoor grass fields before my kids retire, but in the meantime we have to appreciate that pro soccer is a business and as a business it prospers when there is more certainty of scheduling and conditions. In some cases that might mean tolerating a dome. That doesn't have to be the case everywhere but it works here, and in exchange for that Atlanta has an veritable palace in an ideal downtown location between 2 subway stops. That formula is averaging 40k+ for us. How's the outdoor + grass equation working out for Chicago, Boston, Denver... I'm not bagging on you or the grass crowd, I'm just tired of this BS idea that MBS is a detriment to the league. That line of thinking has no regard for the financial realities of MLS, let alone the history of soccer in the US. Priorities people.
Tourists go to professional games all the time. I take in a Cubs game every time I'm in Chicago during the summer. I'm heading to Portland in June. Guess what, I'm going to a Timber game. When I was in Europe last year, I went to 4 games in 4 different countries. Is that going to be our base? No, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt that we attract millions of tourists every year to the Valley. My larger point was that there are plenty of great sports fans in Arizona. There are sports bars for just about every team here. I truly think that people, especially young people would really flock to the Rising if they get a team. For a lot of the reasons I've already laid out. I go to quite a few games now and its a young, vibrant crowd. Finally, I'll just go back to the location of the stadium. It would be pretty ideally located. I hate to keep bringing up Spring Training, but there are some takeaways. The stadiums for the Cubs, Giants, and D Backs/Rockies are all located within about a 3 mile radius of the proposed stadium. All are far and away the best drawing teams in the Cactus League. It is located on the border of Scottsdale, Tempe and Northern Mesa, with Chandler/Gilbert and Phoenix all an easy drive away. An MLS team would crush it there. Besides that there is good young talent here and (as I mentioned previously) a quickly growing metro area that will almost certainly be a top ten TV market within 10 years.
It's just relegation that's been suspended for a couple of years. Promotions will still occur - provided the promoted side meets a set of requirements, otherwise there will be no promotion. I think more than half of the Liga de Ascenso currently would not qualify. And agree with your assessment. When the league went from 20 to 18 teams a few years back, it was because of a long study by the league that determined that 18 was the ideal size for the first division. Guess that study has now been forgotten since the league is going back up to 20.
The Coyotes drew pretty well when they played downtown. Then they moved out to Glendale, which is an hour drive from much of the Valley (without traffic). They largely eliminated the East Valley from their fanbase. Really no different than what the Fire did in building in Bridgeview. Top that off with garbage ownership, including being league run for a couple seasons, a bad to mediocre team and constant threats to leave town and you get the Coyotes.
No thanks. I've already laid it out. The Suns have perhaps the worst owner in the basketball in Sarver and still consistently draw about 17,000 fans a game. The D Backs have mediocre ownership and I think they are hurt by the fact that most baseball fans are older and most of those fans here in the valley have split baseball loyalties. They still draw OK when they are winning. I already posted about the Coyotes. The move to Glendale killed that team. My point about Spring Training and the Open is that there are avid sports fans in this town. If you wanna talk about selling tickets to sporting events, I doubt you'll find many towns that support as many events as we do and I think there is a true appetite here. I didn't necessarily think that 5 years ago when the team was drawing a few hundred fans a game at the Peoria Sports Complex and shelling out a total of about $100K per year in overall wages, but this ownership group has changed my opinion. With the right owners, in the right location, Phoenix could be a great market. I think we've got that. That said, this "Sports town" thing is a lame argument. If that was all it took, then Dallas, Houston, Chicago, NYRB, etc wouldn't be drawing shit crowds. In the same way, if the Rising were talking about dropping a team in University of Phoenix Stadium or something, I'd tell them not to bother.