The designers of RFK Stadium and Soldier Field had a great deal of foresight to plan for a professional soccer league.even though all existing MLS teams play in open-air stadiums specifically built for soccer.Indeed.Travis E. Poling
Express-News Business Writer
This is completely different from the Alamodome. The Dome was built to lure an NFL team.
The MLS wants to put a team here. And they most likely are.
The Stadium, if built, will be built in a few years with the MLS already having a team here.
You'd think that with all the intelligence you claim to possess you'd be able to make out the noticeable difference between the two situations.
One being a dome to lure a pro team, the other being a stadium to house your pro team.
Last edited by TheWriter; 04-14-2005 at 10:58 PM.
Didn't both stadiums have major renovations?
Any sports team for a city is a good deal.
When the ABA came to SA back in the 70's, Red McCombs got so much crap trying to get investors to buy into the ABA working in SA.
He told them matter of fact. He said they would lose money. He told them all the negative things that would occur. He told them the positives. Luckily he was able to get enough investors to bring the Spurs to SA.
Basketball wasn't as big as baseball nor football. The ABA was even less noticed.
But Red McCombs, in his own words, knew the power of sports and its affect on a city.
And he was so right. The Spurs have done so much for this city in terms of its growth.
I think the MLS is a good thing.
Last edited by TheWriter; 04-14-2005 at 11:04 PM.
You are lying.You people are not looking at the big picture here. All you guys are focusing on is: A. The contract. B. The money the city will make/lose. C. Getting an NFL team. D. How much soccer sucks.
Not once did I mention any of those things. All I posted was the dates that were occupied and wondered if those were enough to cover the cost of the upkeep of the Dome. Please try to post accurately.
I was being general not specific.
Yeah, but you can't say they -- or Rice-Eccles or Spartan Stadium or Invesco Field or Gillette Stadium -- are designed specifically for soccer.Didn't both stadiums have major renovations?
By next season, the league will have 4 stadiums designed specifically for soccer, home for 5 out of 12 teams (2 in LA, Columbus, Dallas, Chicago).
True. But look who wrote the article. He probably knows zero about the MLS and read something somewhere and went with it.
Not directed at you Chump:
However, that is not to deny the fact that the Alamodome would only be temporary. And that a soccer stadium will need to be built.
Note the bold type a couple of posts back.[Ed: Oh, direction noted, nevermind]But look who wrote the article.That perhaps would be ideal for the MLS, but they'd probably settle for a half-full Alamodome with a naming sponsor.However, that is not to deny the fact that the Alamodome would only be temporary. And that a soccer stadium will need to be built.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-14-2005 at 11:19 PM.
Writer, You referred to all posters in this thread...I posted in this thread.
It doesn't work like that.
That's why the Spurs left the dome.
You can't have a 20,000 per event sport playing ina 60,000-70,000 seat stadium. You'll get end of losing all your money.
That is why the Spurs moved. Why the Hawks left the Georgiadome.
The Spurs had no problem filling the half of the Dome they had. But they couldn't continue there. Neither can the MLS. Which is why a new stadium needs and most likely will be built.
They did fill it on occasion when they opened it up that was usually only for playoff games.
Nowhere did I say: Everyone of you in this thread is not looking...You people are not looking at the big picture here. All you guys are focusing on is
What I said was more general than specific to one person in this thread or to all of you.
I said it the way I did because it would take to long to name every individual poster who was "not looking at the big picture."
I think people who read this thread would be able to understand who those posters are.
But if your that insecure about it, so be it.
its not a matter of being insecure, its a matter of pointing out an error you made involving me. You could have said "those of you who are focusing on..." you chose a line of wording that indicated everyone here. You say you didn't mean it like that and that's cool but just because I disagree doesn't make me insecure.All you guys are focusing on is
Last edited by samikeyp; 04-14-2005 at 11:31 PM.
Depends on the rent and overhead.It doesn't work like that.
That's why the Spurs left the dome.
You can't have a 20,000 per event sport playing ina 60,000-70,000 seat stadium. You'll get end of losing all your money.Bad examples -- basketball teams suck in domes because of ty sight lines and truncated luxury suite availability. Fewer such problems with soccer. Why are there no plans for the other teams to build new stadiums?That is why the Spurs moved. Why the Hawks left the Georgiadome.
There's only one team that's making a profit in the MLS anyway, so three teams in soccer-specific stadiums are losing it. Again alot depends on the overhead, and thislooks like pretty low overhead.The team would get the Alamodome rent-free for 20 games a year.
The team would keep all revenue from tickets, parking and concessions.
The team would get half of any revenues from events it co-sponsored with the city, such as an exhibition soccer match featuring teams from Mexico.
I agree with you LJSoccer? Why not just plant grass and charge people to watch it grow?
The domes are also more expensive to maintain....you can get 50,000 to a playoff game but its when you get barely 17,000 for a January game on a tuesday against the Clips that hurt.
General.
Just get over it.
Look up the term "general."
Jesus... insecure.
Weird... seeing how it's the biggest sport in the world. You know, the places outside the United States.
I don't like soccer but to act like it's that ing sort where guys throw some ball down a lane and two other dudes sweep the front is just lame.
I've been over it. Like I said, just because I disagree, doesn't make me insecure.
Um... no NBA team is getting 50,000 in any dome. Unless it's Jordan's last game against your team,
It was an example. The Spurs did get over 60,000 a few times.
What I said was general. Not specific. Yes I used All but in a general sense.
You're insecure if you can't understand that.
Huh?
WTF did they get 60,000? They would have had to oepn the whole dome up to sell out the 60,000 seat Alamodome.
Please tell me when they opened up the Dome for the Spurs...
The first post said "all you guys" then you explained your position. Just because you assume I am insecure, doesn't make it so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
