WHEELOCK: Talking MLS expansion with the Rhinos

The quotes I found most interesting:

SW: Tell me about PAETEC Park?

CE: It's going to be located less than a quarter mile from Frontier Field (Rochester's current stadium), so the fans will be acclimated to the area already. We're now planning on having 12,500 to 15,000 permanent seats or bleachers, with the capability of bringing in another 2,500 to 5,000 seats to get to the 17,500 capacity (the minimum capacity guideline set by MLS).



SW: It's been reported that you're going to install Field Turf rather than natural grass. Is this true?

CE: After having lunch with (Chicago Fire G.M.) Peter Wilt, I'm now having second thoughts about Field Turf. But when you look at the climate here in Rochester, and from a maintenance perspective, and a weather perspective, we're leaning heavily towards Field Turf. We played on it last year against the MetroStars at Giants Stadium, and it played fine. We haven't absolutely finalized things, but that's the direction we're heading in.



SW: Has the league given you a date by which you'll know whether you're in next season or not?

CE: From our conversations, we're looking at the MLS Cup (November 14) as a formal announcement date. Obviously from our perspective, if we could have that date pushed up, it would be much, much better. We want to start selling MLS tickets now if we're going to be in. Commissioner Garber has said that we're a very strong candidate, but we have to work within the guidelines.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Overall a good interview. Asked some intelligent questions. It's interesting that he said the formal announcment will come at the MLS Cup while in another article released today (written by Kenn) says that it will be mid June I believe.

Any idea how regularly the interviews in this series will be released?

 

I still can not believe they would install field turf at their soccer stadium. Has Naperville, Dragon Stadium, and Giants Stadium taught us nothing?! I'm sure Wilt pushed that pretty hard. Maybe he needs to have lunch with Josh Wolff too.

 

As if Josh Wolff was never injured on grass. He's Superman on grass, indestructible.

Garber said yesterday that Rochester is an unlikely candidate for 2005, but very high on their list for 2006. If they want to announce in June or at MLS Cup that Rochester will be in in 2006 and let them have either a rampup year or a lameduck year in the A-League, however you choose to look at it, that would be their perogative.

We had this conversation about FieldTurf. You may hate it, but it's a matter of economics. How can you not see this, seriously? These people are scraping to get the money together to pay for their stadium in the first place (to say nothing of how they're going to scrape up the dough to get into MLS and then to actually run an MLS-level team), the taxpayers are going to need the facility used enough times a year so that it doesn't become a boondoggle, the debt service needs to be taken care of, and the savings in maintenance and the added revenue from being able to host more events in the stadium makes it very, very hard to say "Okay, it may bankrupt me, but I'm going to go with grass, just so that people who will never buy a ticket to see us play here will be happy."

I'm not saying that an artificial surface doesn't suck, most of them do (having stood on Giants Stadium's surface last Saturday, it was packed down so flat that it was almost like carpet, I didn't see any great 35 years of progress there) and of course you'd rather play on grass if you can. But Rochester doesn't look, to me anyway, like a situation where they can spare no expense to get things just the way they want them. We're not dealing with money on the level of Anschutz/Hunt et al. We're dealing with people who are seemingly very good at what they do, but who have (a) a finite level of funding and (b) a finite level of revenue they can conceivably generate in a market the size of Rochester.

I'm just saying, understand the economics of the thing. And economics usually trumps everything else.

 

Well, then don't let them in the stinking league!

 

I understand the economics - but never short change the product to save money.

Rochester is a soccer team - in a soccer stadium and it would be a mistake in my opinion to corrupt the product that is the driving force behind the ENTIRE situation. Are you a soccer team in a stadium or are you an events center that hosts a soccer team?

NBA Teams don't put rubber floors down to save money. NHL teams don't put down wood floors and play on roller blades to save money on ice. Wimbledon doesn't put down cement to save money on grass. Those may be extreme examples but they are all sports where the playing surface is vital to the sport. But no less vital than a soccer field.

If the surface is important, and it is, and you want to do it right - you put in grass. Do Not Compromise. It will cost you in the end.

If I owned the Rhinos I wouldn't do it and if I were Garber I wouldn't let them in if they did. Your sport has standards - don't cheapen them for convenience sake.

 

Some great open-minded thinking here.

 

I realize that. But it's easy to say when it's not your money. NBA and NHL teams don't have to save money on their surface, and there's no substitute surface for ice (and the substitute basketball floors suck, too). I'm just guessing, too, that maintenance for grass is still more than maintenance for wood and for ice.

And even if they do do it, no one's saying it's a permanent solution - if Rochester does gangbusters like some think it will, they can re-think it in a few years.

But the world's not going to freaking end if they play on FieldTurf, despite what some would like you to believe.

 

This was my thought as well. Put it in as a temporary situation with the option to go natural in the event the club pulls down solid jack. It's a minor detail when you consider the big picture.

 

Then we just differ on how big a compromise we think it is. That's cool.

 

I understand where you are coming from, Kenn, and you make a lot of good points. But does it occur to anyone else that if the difference in cost between grass and field turf has the possible effect of making a Rochester team financially unstable, then mabe MLS ought not to be considering this team at this time. If something as small as this could tip the franchise into insolvency, what if other problems occur down the road? What if MLS explodes and the salary caps jump up, but Rochester can't keep up with the growth? This kind of stuff makes me think twice about Rochester's place in MLS.

 

I don't know if I'd go that specific, but the general point is that if DuRoss and company want to get into MLS, and it sounds like they do, it doesn't sound as if it's going to be just as simple as writing a check. They're going to be a girl on a budget. And playing surface may be one thing that, while it might not tip them into insolvency, can be one of those things that contributes to straining the budgt.

Now, it may very well be that they end up thinking like some here, and say that aesthetics and everything are more important - and bully for them if they do. I'm just pointing out what might be their point of view on the issue of money, which seems like it's going to be tight. And if it gets too tight, as you know probably from your own life experience, appearances be damned. You gotta make a living and feed the kids.

 

I wrote this sentiment as a sentence earlier in this thread. TexGator so brilliantly expanded my thoughts out further. This IS the issue, not FieldTurf in and of itself.

 

Kenn...

Exactly! Field Turf is FIFA approved. The USSF is a member of FIFA. MLS is sanctioned by the USSF.

Everyone was all upset with the shootout saying that it 'wasn't the way the game is played all over the world.' well, now that are upset because teams all over the world are playing on FieldTurf, but a MLS team plays on it, now that is a total disgrace?

Yep... Chicago, Dallas, and the MetroStars should have just closed shop and not played during the years of fake grass. Oh.. and the NFL lines... yes, there should be NO soccer played if there is couple of extra lines on the field. Never mind the fact that in some countries some how they manage with rugby lines messing up the most holy soccer field.

SHEESH...

 

DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!! DD Grassmaster!!!

I swear if I lived in upstate New York and was a Rhinos fan I'd have this tattooed into my chest and run around their parking lot with my shirt off.

 

The ice and hardwood analogy don't make sense because their requirements don't prevent the stadium from being used for something else. Hardwood floors can be removed, and the circus moved in the next day.

A soccer field needs to taken out of commission from time to time to let it recover. That's why some state of the art soccer stadiums now have grass fields that can be slid in and out of the stadium, so that the stadium can be used for other things.

 

That's why I'm so confused as to why Rochester would want to move to MLS. They've got a successful (profitable?) organization at the A-League level. What added benefit would the get by spending more money? The franchise fee alone would seem to make this move pointless.

 

I have long been confused by the economic sense of wanting to extend yourself that way when you're (seemingly) doing well financially in the A-League. Far be it for me to tell somebody they can't aspire to something. If it's been their dream to own an MLS franchise and bring the top level of American league soccer to their market, then great. Dreams don't always make the best financial sense. As I've said, I welcome them if they have a suitable stadium and ownership that has enough money to pull it off, and can generate enough revenue to make it a viable ongoing concern. We need people who care about the game, and the people in charge and the people who are fans in Rochester care about the game.

 

I think he answered the finacial incentive of MLS quite well.

He also goes onto mention that he believes in SEM because it keeps everyone on the same playing feild. We may knock SEM and not understand why this guy would give up a profitable franchise to enter into a situation where he will be covering other team's losses but there's more then meets the eye here. We of course don't know the subtle workes of the MLS' SEM agreement and if anyone could ever get their hands on that document or whatever exists it'd be like American Soccer's equivalent to the Pentagon Papers.

However, as the Rhinos exist right now they're only going to grow so much farther. Certainly having a brand new stadium will be a draw but if they do want to grow into a regional franchise they're not going to do it in the A-league. You're not going to get a lot of people imo from other cities in Upstate New York to come watch a minor league franchise. Say what you want about the quality of MLS or how they run their buisness in terms of being 'major league,' but one thing's for sure that the A-league is a minor league. If DuRoss wants to build his team up any further at some point it's going to have to happen with MLS.

While I don't see this guy being able to come up with the funds to accomidate MLS cash calls, if SEM didn't exist suddenly he might have to compete with an owner that decides he wants to bring David Beckham to the US while the Rhinos are running out Chris Carrarie or whoever else. If he's comfortable that he can finacially run wtih the big boys at least he knows that nobody is going to try to one up him with big name star players. Furthermore, given SEM it's going to be a lot easier for him to acquire the next Landon Donavan instead of having the next David Testo.

 

You people are just being silly. On the one hand you say that MLS needs expansion which will benefit the league in the long run but then you say that if this team or that team can't do it exclusively in the manner of 'traditional' soccer then screw them and 'don't let them in'.

Well which is it?

Let's keep some focus and perspective. For me, I'd rather hear an announcement from Garber that says here are the expansion teams for next year;..... rather than well, we're not going to expand in this market because they arent' able to provide natural grass.

I say, if Rochester is the expansion team, let's get them in MLS. Give them a few years in an expanding league, get that fan base and then if the financials allow, convert to natural grass.

 

Well, then, I need to RTFA next time. That answers that.

 

Upstate New York lacks anything "Major League" during the Summer. The closest they come is AAA baseball.

You've got the Bills and Syracuse U football in the fall, SU Basketball and maybe the Sabres in the winter and that's it.

Seems to me that there's a real good opportunity for success here, plus the enthusiasm among the ownership to get it done. There's also real good fan support for the current club. I think all of this can help offset a lack of money.

I hope it happens, field turf or no field turf.

 

There are teams all over the world playing on Field Turf in their home stadia?