I believe you when you say he said they need a bit over 2,000 paid to break even. I just don't believe that 2,000 is the number. It wasn't in the AISA back in 1988 either.
anyone feel like doing the quick math? Take out PA and the league isn't doing too bad (with these inflated # 's ) So even if St Louis is really averaging 5600, and only 1500 is paid and the rest are sponsorship tickets.. that is FINE as long as those sponsors keep coming back year after year and "paying" for those "freebies" When sponsors start jumping ship ..... then you're screwed
If 5,000 is the magic number to achieve, no league has gotten there since the 2003-2004 MISL2. And the only teams that are over 5,000 announced for the period 2001-2013 are Baltimore, Rochester, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Monterrey and Dallas, and only three of those teams are still extant in the MISL.
I think, and it may just be me, that this "new" 6-7 k arena model is the only way to build a team around. And if you can't average 5, then it ain't working. Not saying 3500 or 4k might pay all the bills and get you in the black, but 5 would be the magic number to be very healthy. We may never ever see enough teams that can do that from year to year, but that is a good yard marker...
I think it would be great to get to 5,000. I'm just sayin', hardly anybody ever gets there. I do agree with you, that Missouri-sized arenas would be tremendous. Not a lot of those are getting built, though. And even the one in Wichita wasn't a panacea, because they couldn't make it there.
So quick question, if 4K isn't considered good enough, then why don't I ever hear about the Comet's having trouble. Is it that they have so much sponsorship money coming in? The other question I have is are these figures based on last year's MISL model or this years because everything I heard in the off season was that player salaries were being cut which is why so many star players didn't sign on until late in the off season. Isn't that why Millwood went to Syracuse, Lookingland singed so late in Baltimore and Bennett signed so late in Milwaukee because they weren't getting the offers they wanted? Is the 5K still valid if the teams are truly cutting salaries across the board to make themselves more viable?
He's certainly got the expense side of the equation down. These are all imprecise metrics, first off, and they don't hold true for each and every club. People always try to gauge the general health of a franchise based on its announced attendance numbers (because we don't get drop counts or revenue numbers), but it's basically guesswork. At the end of the day, average attendance matters less than revenue in versus revenue out. No one (except Bart Wolstein, I believe) has ever closed down a franchise despite it making money, and no one dumps a franchise that's making too big a profit. We don't get revenue numbers and expense numbers, so people extrapolate based on the numbers we do get. Now, if at either extreme end of the spectrum, the generalizations we can draw are probably closer to accurate. If a club is getting 600 or 1,000 a game or if they're getting 7,000 a game (if it's not just on paper), it's a little easier to say the former club is in dire straits and the latter is probably better off. It's the folks in the middle that are harder to tell about. You know that old joke, "How do you know if a Deadhead has been in your house? He's still there." Just like you know if a TV show is getting watched and making money if it stays on the air, a soccer team that sticks around either is doing okay financially ("okay" having different definitions in different circumstances) or there's something else going on that we're unaware of. Again, see above. If teams are sticking around at less than 5k, they've had to do something on the expense side. Whether that means busing 900 miles or cutting player costs or having skeleton crews in the front office (or all of those and more), it's very likely the equation is different. How different? We don't know. We don't have any hard information on salaries or expense or drop counts or gameday revenue. We're all just guessing. We are fairly certain PASL teams have lower overhead (and that the budgetary issues were one - but not the only - of the issues that kiboshed the merger), but we're kind of in the dark there, too. TLDR: A lot of it is conjecture. But if a team sticks around, they must be doing something right.
Thanks. Been looking for that one. If you're curious: Pre-January 1 average: 4,454 January 1 - post average: 4,452
Has weather been a factor? Seems the northeast has been getting more snow and cold this year than normal. Still, it's very worrisome.
I fully expect that Tommy and his band of merry men are going to pull out...this experiment has gone long enough and not enough people are going there. They will fold or be convinced to try one more season with some "urging"
Team averages with one game missing and 16 to play: Rochester.....7,241 Baltimore.....5,825 St. Louis.....5,347 Milwaukee.....5,006 Missouri......4,137 Syracuse......2,784 Pennsylvania..1,495 LEAGUE........4,480 The league projects (based on games remaining and current averages) to around 4,500 for a final average, which would be ahead of last year and the highest since The Split.
From what I've been reading from friends and fellow season ticket holders would not be shocked to see a smaller than normal crowd in Milwaukee today. They play 4 home games in the next 3 weeks and this game should be a snoozer if all things play out as they should. Not making excuses, just my thoughts going into the game.
It's not too much smaller than normal. Somewhere ~5,000 I'd guess. If this is now a subpar crowd, I'm perfectly okay with that.