|
Post by aardvark on Aug 8, 2017 20:18:20 GMT -8
If MLS is so profitable, why doesn't FSI just get a smaller plot of land and build their own 22,500 seat stadium and be done with it? After all, with Soccer United Marketing making all these millions, it shouldn't be long at all before FSI is rolling in dough with their own stadium and MLS franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Aug 8, 2017 20:55:22 GMT -8
If MLS is so profitable, why doesn't FSI just get a smaller plot of land and build their own 22,500 seat stadium and be done with it? After all, with Soccer United Marketing making all these millions, it shouldn't be long at all before FSI is rolling in dough with their own stadium and MLS franchise. Zactly!
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Aug 9, 2017 11:46:07 GMT -8
If MLS is so profitable, why doesn't FSI just get a smaller plot of land and build their own 22,500 seat stadium and be done with it? After all, with Soccer United Marketing making all these millions, it shouldn't be long at all before FSI is rolling in dough with their own stadium and MLS franchise. You can hate on FSI all you want, but it's intellectually dishonest to hate on MLS when if SDSU's stadium was in partnership and dependent on another investor securing an MlS franchise you would look for every reason that it's a good investment.
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Aug 9, 2017 11:48:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 9, 2017 12:31:44 GMT -8
If MLS is so profitable, why doesn't FSI just get a smaller plot of land and build their own 22,500 seat stadium and be done with it? After all, with Soccer United Marketing making all these millions, it shouldn't be long at all before FSI is rolling in dough with their own stadium and MLS franchise. You can hate on FSI all you want, but it's intellectually dishonest to hate on MLS when if SDSU's stadium was in partnership and dependent on another investor securing an MlS franchise you would look for every reason that it's a good investment. It's a legitimate question.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 9, 2017 12:39:02 GMT -8
With the Premier League starting again soon, it will be interesting to see viewership numbers to see who has the better ratings--the Premier League games shown here before dawn, or the primetime MLS games.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Aug 9, 2017 12:41:59 GMT -8
You can hate on FSI all you want, but it's intellectually dishonest to hate on MLS when if SDSU's stadium was in partnership and dependent on another investor securing an MlS franchise you would look for every reason that it's a good investment. It's a legitimate question. Yup, fair question.
|
|
|
Post by beefeater on Aug 9, 2017 13:16:05 GMT -8
With the Premier League starting again soon, it will be interesting to see viewership numbers to see who has the better ratings--the Premier League games shown here before dawn, or the primetime MLS games. The numbers I saw from last season were, on average EPL 385K MLS 230K So far this season, MLS is at 315K. That's before the All Star break, and doesn't include the All Star Game that drew 1.9 M viewers (when you include streaming). So, taking a guess at your question, EPL will outperform MLS, assuming EPL viewership will continue to increase. MLS is picking up the slack, though.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 9, 2017 14:40:19 GMT -8
With the Premier League starting again soon, it will be interesting to see viewership numbers to see who has the better ratings--the Premier League games shown here before dawn, or the primetime MLS games. The numbers I saw from last season were, on average EPL 385K MLS 230K So far this season, MLS is at 315K. That's before the All Star break, and doesn't include the All Star Game that drew 1.9 M viewers (when you include streaming). So, taking a guess at your question, EPL will outperform MLS, assuming EPL viewership will continue to increase. MLS is picking up the slack, though. Impressive increase in eyeballs for LOS. I think I share the same view as many here... I'd love to see MLS in San Diego... but the FS plan, well, sucks.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Aug 18, 2017 11:22:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 18, 2017 13:53:41 GMT -8
Already the smallest stadium by far in their conference, and they want smaller. And isn't 30+ thousand too big for MLS?
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Aug 18, 2017 14:35:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Sept 11, 2017 16:54:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 11, 2017 22:27:56 GMT -8
Phoenix already has a site, and a small stadium seating 6,000 on that site for their USL team. They also already have a plan in place with Goldman Sachs to finance an expansion of that stadium to 20k for an expansion MLS franchise. And--the 6,000 seat stadium was built in less than 60 days earlier this year--without a multi-billion dollar development around it.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Sept 12, 2017 5:06:58 GMT -8
Phoenix already has a site, and a small stadium seating 6,000 on that site for their USL team. They also already have a plan in place with Goldman Sachs to finance an expansion of that stadium to 20k for an expansion MLS franchise. And--the 6,000 seat stadium was built in less than 60 days earlier this year--without a multi-billion dollar development around it. Yup, Sacramento, Phoenix, Nashville, Detroit, Cincinatti, San Antonio and Tampa Bay all either have stadiums or are ready to break ground/expand. Sucker City should seriously bow out now. They have no chance of getting a franchise. It's wasting everyone's time, and slowing the process to actually develop Mission Valley.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 12, 2017 6:15:03 GMT -8
Phoenix already has a site, and a small stadium seating 6,000 on that site for their USL team. They also already have a plan in place with Goldman Sachs to finance an expansion of that stadium to 20k for an expansion MLS franchise. And--the 6,000 seat stadium was built in less than 60 days earlier this year--without a multi-billion dollar development around it. Yup, Sacramento, Phoenix, Nashville, Detroit, Cincinatti, San Antonio and Tampa Bay all either have stadiums or are ready to break ground/expand. Sucker City should seriously bow out now. They have no chance of getting a franchise. It's wasting everyone's time, and slowing the process to actually develop Mission Valley. It's out of Soccer City's hands (feet?) now. It has to be voted on in November of 2018. Of course, had the city (Faulconer) called for RFP's for the stadium property instead of trying to force FSI's proposal through, the development process might actually be moving along, instead of the current inaction.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Sept 12, 2017 7:42:42 GMT -8
I would find it amusing if US Soccer didn't even make the World Cup. That way, Soccer City wouldn't get the "post World Cup bump."
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Sept 17, 2017 11:33:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Sept 17, 2017 11:35:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 17, 2017 14:15:02 GMT -8
Ah okay. I mean, 42,000 would be a lot better than what we have now, I just don't think it's realistic; at least not at first. I'm thinking once we start gunning to release our stadium plan it'll most likely be somewhere between 35,000 and 37,000. Probably closer to 35,000 though. I think you are right, but my guess is it is around 37,000 fixed seats, then 3,500 SRO and Luxury Box. I'm still puzzled by the concept of SRO areas. Please explain. Are SRO fans supposed to stand along a railing at the top of the fixed seat grandstand? Sit on bare ground behind the end zone? Or what? Doesn't sound very appealing to me. And would SRO fans be charged less because they are not able to sit down or have to sit on a hill side? But most important, who wants to have to stand up for three and a half or four hours to watch a game in person when they could watch it (or some other game) in the comfort of their own living rooms? AzWm
|
|