To answer the question of outliers, here are the averages and medians for Saturday nights in 2005. I use Saturday nights, since they're the bulk of MLS games and since they feature the fewest events (doubleheaders, fireworks, etc.) that skew attendance. Moreover, as you can see below, not everybody plays the same number of Saturday night games due to stadium availability and whatnot, which can further skew the overall averages. First, the averages: Code: [B][U]Gms.[/U][/B] [B][U]Average[/U][/B] Los Angeles 10 24,553 Real Salt Lake 9 19,245 D.C. United 11 18,085 FC Dallas (PHP) 7 13,896 MetroStars 8 13,858 San Jose 13 13,652 Chicago 7 13,482 Columbus 10 13,390 New England 13 13,055 Chivas USA 9 12,523 Colorado 9 12,186 Kansas City 10 10,909 FC Dallas (CB) 4 9,850 Now, the medians: Code: [B][U]Gms.[/U][/B] [B][U]Median[/U][/B] Los Angeles 10 25,716 D.C. United 11 18,379 Real Salt Lake 9 17,861 FC Dallas (PHP) 7 14,102 Chicago 7 12,907 Columbus 10 12,769 MetroStars 8 12,374 New England 13 12,317 Chivas USA 9 11,789 Kansas City 10 11,188 San Jose 13 11,067 Colorado 9 10,259 FC Dallas (CB) 4 9,819 By the way, for those of you who don't know what a median is, it's the number that you would get if you sorted an entire set -- like a team's attendances on Saturday night -- and pulled out the one that was exactly in the middle. If you've got an even number of members of the set, then the median would be the average of the two in the middle. For example, if you've got the numbers 10,000, 15,000, and 80,000 in your set, then 15,000 would be the median. It's generally thought to be a more representative number than the average in these sorts of situations. Take the three numbers that I gave you above and suppose that they're a team's attendances. The average is 35,000, but is it really representative of that team's attendance? Maybe not, if the 80,000 attendance was attained through a doubleheader with Man United vs. Real Madrid. But the median -- 15,000 -- gives you a little bit better idea of the actual attendance that that team is getting. Here are the differences between the team's averages and their medians: Code: San Jose 2,585 Colorado 1,927 MetroStars 1,484 Real Salt Lake 1,384 New England 738 Chivas USA 734 Columbus 621 Chicago 575 FC Dallas (CB) 31 FC Dallas (PHP) - 206 Kansas City - 279 D.C. United - 294 Los Angeles -1,163 Most of them are fairly close, with a few exceptions. San Jose we'll get to in a moment. The MetroStars' Saturday night average was skewed by a 27,670 attendance when DC visited on October 1. Real Salt Lake's Saturday night average was skewed by the 40,589 attendance for the USA-Costa Rica WCQ/RSL-FCD doubleheader on June 4. And as for Colorado, there wasn't really one attendance that really skewed their Saturday night attendance, it was just all over the place. Which leaves San Jose. Like Colorado, there's not one massive attendance that skews the average -- a point which the San Jose fans never fail to bring up. However, the 13,652 Saturday night attendance was not entirely representative, either. While people like to remember the four large late-season gates that they had against Los Angeles, Chivas USA, RSL, and FCD, they are also the team that drew less than 10,000 on five of their 13 Saturday nights this season. Even everyone's favorite whipping boy, the Kansas City Wizards, did that on only four out of 10 Saturday nights this season. That's proportionately a dead heat. And speaking of a dead heat, that phrase pretty much describes the Quakes' and Wizards' median attendances. So while "Quakes fans only turned out to hate on LA" is not completely accurate, it has more than a kernel of truth to it, considering that of the five Saturday night attendances that were above their 13,652 Saturday night average, two were their two games against the Galaxy and one was their one Saturday night game against Chivas USA. And those three games, as well as their last two regular-season home Saturday night games against FCD on September 24 and against RSL on October 8 skewed their Saturday night average up. Of course, all of this is kind of irrelevant, since attendance was never THE reason why the Quakes were moved. But at the same time, while "Quakes fans only turned out to hate on LA" isn't completely accurate, Quakes fans should also understand that the whole "we had the fourth-best attendance in the league when you factor out other teams' big attendance-skewing nights" meme is a little bit of sunshine being blown up our asses and tells a skewed story.
It's a lot easier for me to convince my girlfriend to go to a game at HDC than Spartan. We normally stay in the Valley, which is about as far from HDC as Oakland is to Spartan. But HDC is a lot nicer place to go to a game. Nobody's ever commented on the amateur feel of HDC. My guests at Spartan invariably do. For me it's harder to get ppl to go back to Spartan, and that's not b/c I'm some LA-apologist trying to poison their experience. I actually made it a point to stay very neutral and tried to tell as much of the "story" behind the franchise as I could. But there's no billboard. It's old. The sightlines suck. It's really not up to par.
There are a lot of points and counterpoints here, but let me start with a simple syllogism: If one posits AEG as a cause of SJ's problems, they must have been there before those problems started (or at least made they must have made those problems significantly worse). But SJ's problems predate AEG, and therefore AEG can't be at fault. To me, if you insist that AEG "had a role" in the Quakes' departure, I would respond, "Yes, they had a role in the departure. They delayed it." --- One other question, which has been alluded to but I think needs re-formulating. In MLS, owners must cover for each others' losses. So how does Phil Anchutz explain the decision to Vergara, Kroenke, Kraft, Hunt, Payne et al, and Checketts that he's keeping the Quakes in SJ despite the fact that they are the only team in the league (AFAIK) that's never even gotten far enough in the stadium location process to even hire an architect, draw up a diagram, or draw up a feasibility study? They might not have actually pressured him or anything, but idea that the other owners, who were also losing money, only 'acquiesced' to 'appease' AEG, when they were losing money on teams they didn't even run strikes me as beyond bizarre.
There is a lot of truth in what Carlos says. I had a hard time getting my wife to attend a game at Spartan. She is not a big soccer fan, but it was not soccer that was the problem for her, just the general dumpiness of the stadium. On the other hand, I took an English friend, and he loved it. Thought the atmoshere was great, and had no real complaint about the place, (once he saw that they served Boddington's I knew he was hooked) except he thought the walls that close to the field were insanely unsafe. I think a new stadium would, er...will go along way to drawing fans back to the Quakes.
I'm not trying to compare Spartan with anywhere... especially HDC. Just saying it ain't so bad. Prices are fairly cheap, parking is easy and being so close to the field has it's advantages. I also like the size of the field... makes for a faster game (I like indoor as well). Seeing a game at Spartan is about the game itself... not all the extra crap that gets in the way (in my opinion... I'd love to have replays). That may turn off the casual fan (though my wife is a casual fan and she likes to go there now).
Johnny Moore once mentioned that the Quakes lost less money than any other team (LA was the only team to make money). I'm guessing that was while he was the GM so it wasn't last year. I'd love to see the figures from last year.
I think all of discussing attendance are on the wrong track, while it is probably true that if Spartan Stadium was sold out for every game of the season we may still be here, that is ignoring the realities of such a possibility in this country, especially given the whole Earthquakes situation regarding efforts to increase attendance. It is not even the case that if you build it they will come. Even with a new stadium there will be a marketing department whose job it is to get people in the stadium. Even with a new stadium the FO will need to work to get people to come out and see the Quakes vs Kansas City. So please stop going on about attendance cause that’s not the reason the Quakes are gone. To me that falls in the category of , “we-couldn’t-find-a-local-billionaire-to-pay-for-everything” reason for why the Quakes are gone. Sure if we had found one, we’d still be here. First of all let me make this disclaimer for all the AEG fans out there. Yes they have been good for MLS cause without them there would be no MLS. Thank you AEG for that and frankly, they have been very good to the teams that they are committed to. So all you Galaxy, Fir and Metrostars fans, you have reason to love AEG. I recommend you even start an “AEG is wonderful” thread to extol their many virtues, because they have delivered for you. But the reality for San Jose was that AEG never really wanted the Quakes and so in ways we were doomed from the moment they took over. For all of you hard nosed business types that want to go on about this being a business (which yes, it is), MLS is a real estate business (ok, but in the same way that any other business that needs a place to do business is), etc., I say AEG never even treated the sale of San Jose in a business way. But where was the effort to market and find an owner? Nowhere. They know, better than anyone how these things get done, but did they hire anyone to try and work with possible investors, city council members and mayors to get it done? No, they left that work to SSV - a group of passionate fans essentially figuring this stuff up as they went along (and God Bless them!) A “Real Estate” company like the mighty AEG basically acted worse than a real estate newbie trying to sell an old house. And given their own experience and knowledge on how these types of transaction really get done it shouldn’t have been this way. AEG must have figured that winning 2 MLS Championships was enough marketing to line up all the different parties that need to be aligned to make this happen - but that is not enough. For these things to happen takes some pressing the flesh, feet on the ground, presentations, lunches, dinners, sweat and effort. AEG was essentially not invest even one person do that. And if any of you think that all it takes is a for sale sign to get this done then very naive. Given what we know, do you even think that AEG seriously thought that they were ever going to sell to SVSE given what they knew the reality of the San Jose situation was? They made a "business" decision not to invest in that process in good faith which is why I find fault with AEG and what happened with Quakes. A club like the Earthquakes deserved better. And finally like many other posters have pointed out there is plenty of blame to go around too - a visionless SJSU, a SJ City Council that was only willing to deal with this issue when it was too late, SVSE that was really only interested in San Jose as a solution, an inept MLS leadership (on this issue at least) that is basically a tool of AEG, but I think all this could have been averted if AEG had decided to make an effort.
I think the recent discussion of attendance isn't your garden-variety "Move San Jose" gook. I think it's been in the context of the (limited) role that fan support at the gate plays in this whole debate. It is a factor. No where NEAR being the #1 factor. That has everything to do w/ venue and ancillary income. But it *is* a factor in that better attendance means more ticket revenue and sponsorship revenue, but of which push the feasibility of a franchise inches closer to the break-even and profit level. What gives it the full shove into the profit level is control of the venue. The extra 2.5K in the seats... icing on the cake.
To answer your question with questions, are you saying that St. Phil representing AEG would give FULL details of the negotiations to the other owners including wanting control of the new venue? Including ignoring a short-term solution of reduced rent from Spartan Shops which was probably prompted by AEG's threat to move? That given time, FULL FAITH negotiations and reduced rent that a solution could have been been worked out to the Quakes in SJ? Why would MLS be willing to put an expansion team in San Jose now that AEG has left claiming the market won't support a team and that local g'ments are not willing to help? Could it be that AEG was a major part of the problem and the solution to keeping pro soccer in Northern California, wanted no investment in a team in San Jose but wanted control of the new venue in SJ? Questions, questions, questions.