Just like the Wolves in 2003 - went from a dormat to a contender. Only you guys went one step further
Well that's the way it should be - but the climb to the top could be done. We've already mentioned Charleston, who's to say Cheesetown can't be the next - provided they find a gillionairre willing to spend some cheese on a stadium and a good team.
Back to saving money on travelling, which is one of the justifications for a regional league versus a national league. In lieu of any hard numbers about travel costs, I decided to make some estimates. My assumptions are that the team will fly by air to all away games. I won't include any other expenses such as hotel or food or transportation to the stadium because this will be the same in any city, and this won't matter for the comparison I will be making below. Let's say the team brings 16 players plus a staff of 6 people. That is 22 people. Let's say on average that a round-trip ticket booked in advance will cost US$400 anywhere on the continent. I'll use this average for travelling in the national league even though some cities will be close by and will cost less. For one away game: 22 people * $400 for airfare = $8,800 For all 14 away games in a national league: 14 * $8,800 = $123,200 Now, let's do the same for a mock 8-team regional league. Let's say Seattle is in a league with Portland, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, San Diego, Utah, and *cough* Boise. We can drive to Portland and Vancouver without having to stay overnight. That leaves 5 cities to play 2 away matches at apiece. So 10 instances of air travel. How much cheaper would it be to fly to these supposedly closer cities? Let's say $200 round trip on average. For one away game: 22 people * $200 for airfare = $4,400 For the 10 away games in the regional leagues that require air travel: 10 * $4,400 = $44,000 That is a difference of almost $80,000. I realize that these are rough estimates, and I may have left out some major issues. Please point them out. However, this amount may be high because a national league can still have regional divisions which help cut down on travel costs somewhat. Anyways this is a good talking point: is this level of savings enough justification for having a regional league versus a 16-team national league? - Paul
The problem with your numbers is what you point out - you don't take into account the regional games of a national schedule. Also in the A-league the home team is required to take care of the lodging of the visitors for one night. Hypothetically let's take the Timbers using your numbers. Say next year the Timbers play two away games at each of their Western Division opponents (Seattle, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary). So that leaves Calgary and Edmonton to fly to. 4 division away games *4,400 = $17,600 4 '' " " via Bus *1,000 = $4,000 That leaves 6 non-division away games all via flight: 6*$8,8000 = $52,800 So the true costs of a national schedule would be closer to $75,000. So it is still more than the $44,000 but not as great as a $80,000 difference. IMHO the $28K in travel costs is more than worth it to have a national league with interesting opponents from around the country.
Oh come on now we are talking in theory here right? This is a perfect example of where the league could really help if it wanted to. If the league wants it could be a national league with a real prescence ot it can be mickey mouse and regionalize it's teams to the point that fans only see a handful of team all year. So the league should help teams out with the travel schedule if they want to be a national league. Not to pay for all of it but a subsidy of sort.
Okay now you are just talking crazy talk. Who owns the league? Who makes the money? Do the teams get any money from the league? Will the owners of the league, give any money back to those who pay them? The league won't write a check except for playoff travel money, and that's because the teams put the money into the travel pool. The best part of this is despite so few teams making money, another guy is willing to step up and invest in soccer in the USL.
One table/two at most. A couple of things to consider. Playing the same teams over and over does get really boring. If playing Montreal, Charleston etc. would bring another 500/1000 fans, this would help offset the travel costs. If the league could get airline/hotel sponserships as offsets this would help defray costs. Games between regions would of more interest to TV (rather than having VB on all the time) might mean extra money for the telecast if the ratings were higher. Pax appears to be available. If you were to have East/West divisions a wild card for playoffs does keep the interest up. Anyhow
Why Victoria over Boise? Vancouver Island is how many folks vs. S. Idaho? The difference is huge and much more realistic in Boise IMO.
Population of the city of Victoria 318100. Way back in the 1998 census the population of Vancouver Island was 698117. However population totals are not what makes me choose Victoria over Boise in a REGIONAL league. First off Victoria is closer to the other cities in the league proposed. I'm betting soccer is more popular in Victoria than Boise. A nice 5000+ seat FIFA regulation sized stadium in Victoria that has held a few FIFA events such as the U-19 womens championship. http://www.canadasoccer.com/fifawu19/eng/venues/victoria.asp If they so choose there's another 5700 seat stadium in Victoria where they could play. Where would Boise play?
More Centennial stadium photos: http://www.canadasoccer.com/fifawu19/images/gallery/aug17/usa_eng.jpg http://www.canadasoccer.com/fifawu19/images/gallery/aug17/aus_tpe2.jpg
Doh! I think when I first did my lineup, I included Victoria. I have no clue as to why I left them out. Old age, I guess . Mea culpa a thousand times over.
The only realistic option for Boise is the 4500 seat Memorial Stadium. It's a baseball stadium to start with. Victoria is more accessable to the rest of the league than Boise.
This could be said for local politicians as well. Im amazed as to how many teams try to get the tax payers to foot the bill for stadiums. Charleston's is a private venture built for about $5.7 million. Now I know you all say that Tony Bakker has deep pockets (which Im sure he does) He is the majority owner, but there are about 15 other investors invovled in the Battery. This ownership group is what give the Battery finacial stability. Charleston metro area is around 500,000 as mentioned above and the Battery has done well in this very competative area. The organization has done a great job with a limited budget to market accross the spectrum to attract good great crowds (precent of population wise) Being invovled in local youth and adult soccer, bringing in respected players, having good relations with the local media, and having a good facility emphaises "professionalism" and "permance" that investers want. Hopefully in a couple years the Battery will be looking to expand the stadium seating.
I think the Battery are the best run club in the country - even better than Rochester, for all the reasons above. The Battery is a soccer only venture, and the owners do it for the love of the game.
I agree! Soccer only venue, grass pitch, great atmosphere. There is no doubt in my mind that Charleston IS the best run club in the country, Rochester included.