I know. I'm just pointing out that ppl think that Warner is kissing up to Mexico and the US's asses when in fact Warner doesn't worry about anything/anyone other than himself. That to connect him to the Big Bad American Capitalist Pig is, frankly, stupid. I don't recall that being given as a reason. I remember Warner or somebody saying that it's to raise the level of play. Why throw a minnow into a round-robin group to get annihilated? At some point you've gotta scratch the back of the top teams as well.
Does the Gold Cup make money or does it lose money for the USA? Considering the economic situation, if it makes money keep it in the USA until some civilized debate can agree to rotate it or add co-hosts. If it loses money, then it's time for someone else to give a hand this time around. The economy in the USA is not that good and (like it or not) the economic health of the whole continent, from Canada to Chile, depends on the USA's economic health.
I have a feeling they actually lose money in the Gold Cup. Remember that MMLS still loses millions of dollars each year so this bullshit excuse about making money for CONCACAF when your own league is losing millions is out of the window. If anything, Mexico should host it. They haven't had a solo host of a CONCACAF championship since 1977 and THAT actually made money.
LOL I would like you to point out when have I ever talk out of my ass. I always bring facts and references to debunk the dumb and the ignorant. Probably why I am not liked too much. That is alright, I wasn't born to please everybody when the truth hurts. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_47/b3909099.htm?campaign_id=search http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2002-10-18-expansion_x.htm
I think perhaps willhelm meant that he was hoping you could provide proof of your financial claims in regards to the Gold Cup, not to provide general references regarding the MLS which don't affect the Gold Cup. This must be the only time you didn't understand what someone else said right?
Ok, let me analyze those a bit for you. Second article is from 2002. Let me fix your misquote. It's not, "MMLS has lost half as much money as the 2006 season," which is what you quoted. The actual quote from the article is, "Major League Soccer lost half as much money this season as last". And that's in 2002, so in 2002 the income was improving. This was also in the USA Today article, "MLS lost $250 million in its first five years". Gotta love how you spin things, give a misquote and then link the article. First article you linked to is from 2004. Funny how you didn't include the title: "Soccer: Time To Kick It Up A Notch The MLS looks healthier. Now its game needs spice" My emphasis. And that was from Business Week, most likely unbiased. From the article, in 2004, remember, "lost more than $350 million since its kickoff in 1996". Let's do some basic math. 350-250=100. So that's lost 250 in its first five years(1996-2000), lost 100 in it's next four (2001-2004). From losing 50 million a year to losing 25 million a year. And this was FOUR years ago. You think you might be able to find a more recent source? Here, I'll help you out. Less than 10 months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/s...rss&adxnnlx=1183867432-g4GS9/6SEXgGj0Gbyth5lA "Among the league’s 13 teams, the Galaxy and FC Dallas have shown a profit in their new stadiums, and Chicago, Denver and Toronto are also expected to finish this season in the black, Garber said." Remember a lot of teams don't have jersey sponsors yet. That will aid profitability as well. I'm sure there are more articles out there, go find them.
The only way TFC is not making money is if MLSE is trying to re-coup the franchise fee and the cost overruns of BMO ASAP. The cheapest tickets at BMO are $21, we sell out all 15 home games at 20,500 seats. That's $6.5M if every single ticket was only $21. But some tickets cost up to $60, then there are the private boxes that cost $40K per season. TFC also receives stadium naming rights worth a couple million per year and I think BMO is paying a pretty tidy amount to put their logo on TFC's kits. BMO Field itself is also independently profitable. The stadium made about $1M profit last year, which is split between TFC and the City of Toronto. The franchise fee and stadium building cost notwithstanding, TFC has got to be gushing money.
Thanks, guys. Been a busy day. It's nice to not have to debunk this stuff on my own all the time. So, uh... yeah. Now that the standard issue, irrelevant, and largely false MLS badmouthing has been shown for what it is, how about some evidence that the Gold Cup is a massive money suck for the USSF?
Columbus gets way fewer people in the door AND doesn't have naming rights revenue, but word has it even THEY are in the black. With somewhere close to half the teams in the league in the black and multiple team/league owned SSS's in the works, I bet the league is either now or in the near future turning a profit...
With Jack Warner in charge no one knows if it makes money. There is no open book policy. I can not believe the money that is involved that this should not operate more openly. Here is a link that gives out how much each team made in the last Gold Cup. There $ are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall net income for this event. http://www.mysoccer.com/ussf7/conc0111.php However if 921,476 spectators viewed these games and the ticket price averaged $20 (conservative figure) then my basic Algebra tell me some 18.4 Million dollars was passed. This is not including the TV contract with Univision, ESPN and the other Spanish network that broadcast the game? This is huge money that no one know where it goes. I like the Gold Cup but if the teams are only getting a paltry amount then who cares if it is played in Costa Rica or French Guyana. I do not care if there were only a few hndred in the stands since the national teams are not making any of the $. I would love to see how the US fairs playing in a foreign country. They do not fair to well in the World Cup. Playing well in the Gold Cup in Honduras is the next step for the US anyway. There is also the huge advantage every team has playing on their home pitch. The US has had this advantage in 8 out of 9 Gold Cups (1993-exception). (They never played in Mexico in 2003). Not to mention the easy draws the US has had over the years always being placed in an easy group. I am all for moving the Gold Cup. Someone mentioned using Blazed for fire wood for Warner. He looks like he retired in place and is disable. I have no idea how and why the 2 are involved with CONCACAF and why they are not voted out. If the Central American team are ready to leave CONCACAF then Mex, US and Canada should consider joining this protest, to force the ousted of Warner and Blazer.
I want to take this time and apologize to all MLS fans for any comments I had just made in the past 3 months. I will be supporting the Galaxy to see if they can actually bring Beckam to San Jose. I just learned the real culprit who came up with this bullshit CCL and the allocations of slots is.
Money which equals to and/or leads to Jack Warner. Sad but true. I really wanted the USA to host 2018. If it has to be a European nation, then it would make more sense to give it to Belgium & Netherlands or Portugal & Spain. With the English FA sucking on Warner's dick, the USSF will go at it almost alone. I really don't see how will USSF be able to beat that.
Re: 2010 WCQ: Group B: Mex-Hon-Can-Jam somebody brought up money so I said if UNCAF had that money... how is that off topic?
Re: 2010 WCQ: Group B: Mex-Hon-Can-Jam having Costa Rica and Panama together hosting a Gold Cup would be just great
Re: 2010 WCQ: Group B: Mex-Hon-Can-Jam I don't think it will happen any time soon, but I'd travel to Costa Rica for a Gold Cup.
Re: 2010 WCQ: Group B: Mex-Hon-Can-Jam then why dont we just have it in mexico?? we have everything stadiums-check fans-check credibility-check fifa support-check USA??? why not??