Location is a factor, a big one. KC 's success is also attributable to the FO being engaged and effective within the community. They permeate. Effective, engaged ownership can overcome a so-so/poor location (KC). And a disinterested FO can struggle with a good one (Houston). But a disengaged ownership + a poor location hurts for certain. This has been the case in Columbus & Chicago for a while. Colorado & NE as well. All other things being equal, attendance is a lagging indicator when team performance increases. It is usually the year after you are giod you get the bounce. I am willing to bet the same thing occurs with ownership being engaged. If you have had zero community presence for a decade or more, it takes more than one year to turn it around. It is like a big ship on the water, she don't turn on a dime.
Great point, I would love to see some data on this! The year after a turnaround and then two years after.
----------------- My point was the oversized nature of the stadium, trust me, grass in good. We are already going into another NFL stadium in Charlotte, while grass, may turn out to be turn large. And some of the NFL ticket holders not happy with the changes being made to the stadium to accommodate soccer- check out local Charlotte articles with that. Also interesting in Nashville the former mayor who set up the agreement with MSL is now worried MLS could pull the team and that it makes it look bad for Nashville in relations to businesses who may want to relocated their if the city doesn't honor its promises. More to come out of Nashville for sure.
A little bit of a summary on some of the Nashville stadium saga reinforcing how strange a story it is and will likely continue to be. http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2020/...ns-out-to-be-all-about-a-2-acre-public-plaza/
But Neil generally has his facts in order. And frankly, he's oddly neutral in this piece - merely pointing out that the small parcel is a strange hill to die on for both sides.
Seattle Pilots? Yes. That was the name of Seattle's first MLB team. A nod to Seattle's maritime history (the owner was a part time harbor pilot) and its aviation history. The team's logo was a boat's steering wheel with wings.
My VA hometown had a Carolina League team that was called the Peninsula Pilots and were affiliated with the Seattle Mariners for about 3 seasons in the 90s.
Because the Seattle owners couldn't make payroll, so Selig bought the franchise out of bankruptcy proceedings.
I've always found that amazing (I'm a native Milwaukeean, so I've heard that story since 2nd grade): MLB awards an expansion franchise to some who simply cannot last more than a season. Whenever that happened in the NASL, and when MLS eliminated Tampa Bay and Miami, it was held up as a sign that "Americans just don't like soccer," not "These particular businessmen f'd up big time..."
And they also had "scrambled eggs" on the visor of their hats, similar to what airline pilots have. Of the 4 1969 expansion teams Seattle and Montreal did things very differently in the uniform department. The Expos had a white front to their hats, with red sides and a blue panel in the back. At that time, all the teams had solid colored hats. The Padres also had brown, which no team had used since the St. Louis Browns, who eventually became the Orioles.
I love that site; it points out that the middle, on stadium public financing, is oddly insane. Too many cities/counties/states paying for far too luxurious palaces; for the extremely wealthy, is totally askew. MLS stadiums are comparatively pauper, and so their expense is more justifiable. Perhaps that is why Field of Schemes is more neutral Nashville FC's potential stadium.
I'm sure nothing will ever top the weirdness that is: Oakland/California (golden) Seals --> Cleveland Barrons --> 1/2 of the MN North Stars (merged) --> San Jose Sharks (un-merged, took the ownership with 'em)