http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-in-jeopardy-chamber-of-commerce-report-says/ http://dispatch.com/live/content/sp...tudy.ART_ART_11-05-09_A1_B1FJ0I3.html?sid=101 The team is losing $12 million a year. If they move, what would this mean for the Crew?
I was thinking more along the lines of what happened in Seattle with the Sonics leaving. Maybe losing the hockey team will bring more people to Crew Stadium.
To Dallas or as the second team and be called FCD2.This way they can fill the stadium, or may be not.
From my couch, the stadium looked half full. The Supporters were definitely out in force but that was only a portion of the stands.
according to MLSNet Referee: Baldomero Toledo Referee's Assistants: Thomas Supple; Joe Fletcher 4th Official: Silviu Petrescu Time of Game: 90:00 Weather: Clear -and- 44 degrees Attendance: 10,109 The night before Blue Jackets were home and drew 13,401 Seems like he was dead on.
I think soccermaul was trying to say the crowd was great; not necessarily that the attendance was great. It's a distinction worth making. And on that point, I think soccermaul is correct.
Great crowd for the Crew. Due to the midweek game and weather, 10K is not so bad. Going back on topic, why are the Bluejackets losing so much money?
A building 45% full is still a building 45% full. Sure, Nordecke was great and full. That's 1 or 2 thousand fans. But outside of that, does anyone really care? As an owner, how's your bottom line if you are averaging 65% capacity? As a league, how long can you let attendance strugglers continue to burden the league by creating an impression that people don't care about your sport at it's highest level in this country? There were gaping section of yellow benches on TV.
According to the article, they are playing in a privately financed stadium and paying rent directly to the Nationwide insurance group. This creates the need for a hockey specific stadium
Heh, the funny thing is that you are right. The NHL and Bettman were so blindly desperate to get into any market and accept any expansion money that they get into situations like this. The NBA also have a lot of problem teams as well, with the big problem being arena leases. There certainly is a lesson for MLS into getting into markets where they don't own their own stadium.
We're talking past each other. All I'm saying is that the people who WERE there at Crew Stadium were enthusiastic and created an appealing atmosphere considering the size of the crowd. I don't think anyone is saying we should be satisfied or pleased with a playoff match that only draws 10K. I'm pretty sure I'm just saying that those 10K cared about the outcome, and it showed.
If the stadium was covered or an indoor type of a venue, they could have had more people in the stadium. It was the coldest night last nigh in Ohio.
I've always assumed that there are not a lot of tickets distributed for playoff games, so announced attendance is closer to paid attendance and (because of the short time between purchase and use) actual attendance. It explains why people think playoff crowds look bigger than crowds announced during the regular season -- unused tickets aren't included. As for the original topic, it's hard to tell what it means. My sense is that the NBA and NHL are each about a dozen teams bigger than they should be, and they have gone into marginal markets or allowed marginal ownership to fuel their growth. They got by when the economy was good, but in the current climate the weak teams are hemorrhaging money. The real lesson for MLS here IMO is to be careful with expansion. Many in the expansion forum call for it, but I have real doubts that a 30 odd team MLS would be a good thing -- there aren't enough good markets and quality ownership groups to go around for that IMO. Back in the dark days when MLS contracted, in addition to the Florida teams the league was also worried about Dallas, Colorado, Kansas City, San Jose and the ownership in New York. (See link below). Well, those markets are still a challenge. It takes a long time to turn some of these situations around. The NBA and NHL may be finding out some markets have just about run out of time. Link: http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2001/dec27.htm
1) How is a "covered" stadium going to affect the air temperature? 2) How are you going to grow grass in an "indoor type of a venue"?
Ah, the fall back plan. When there's bad attendance for an MLS game, it's always the weather that's the problem. It could be pouring and 0 degrees, and Ohio State football would sell out (and could many times over). However, the same group of people would stay away from an MLS playoff game because it's a tad bit nipply. The fans that were there were awesome, though. We just need more of them, and less of the casual fan that will be kept away by the cold. The same people who are indicating that the attendance was low for this crucial playoff game are the same people who are advocating in another thread for MLS Cup to be hosted by the team with the better regular season record. So I guess they're expecting the attendance at a place like Columbus to be better 1 month from now when it's even colder and potentially more miserable.