Stadium Discussion

[FootyLovin]

the SS is bigger than just the bleachers, its 2331 233b, 234, Bleachers, and the sections below it.
The youth (14-26) dont wanna sit and watch like evryone else. They want to stand and cheer

I'm in 136 below the SS and have been incredibly psyched to find that my section stands all game every game. That said, I actually got this section rather than supporters b/c I have two daughters, age 10 and 12, who don't want to stand. This was the family compromise - a taste of SS without the chaos that would make it hard on my daughters.

I know when we do get a SSS my section will become a SS and I'll either have to join or get seats elsewhere in the stadium. This Saturday I found myself looking around YS at the other sections, all sitting. I couldn't imagine being in any of those. I'd be miserable sitting on my hands all game.

 

[Gotham Gator]

1) If you take out the historic first home opener, we are averaging more like 22,500 I think. Great number, but not sustainable next year if we continue to play like this.

It's 24,250, and remember that we are going to have another big attendance game when the New Jersey Diabetic Beverages come for their first game in NYC.

The point others have made that attendance often drops or stays flat after the first season is an interesting one.

So, let's take a downside case. Start with the average without the opening day bump, 24,250. Then, we assume we stay flat through year 3 and then grow at the league rate of 4.51% after that. Results: Year 5 - 26,487, Year 10 - 33,024, Year 15 - 41,181. I still think a 30,000 seat stadium that is expandable to 40-45k makes sense.

 

[Kjbert]

It's 24,250, and remember that we are going to have another big attendance game when the New Jersey Diabetic Beverages come for their first game in NYC.

The point others have made that attendance often drops or stays flat after the first season is an interesting one.

So, let's take a downside case. Start with the average without the opening day bump, 24,250. Then, we assume we stay flat through year 3 and then grow at the league rate of 4.51% after that. Results: Year 5 - 26,487, Year 10 - 33,024, Year 15 - 41,181. I still think a 30,000 seat stadium that is expandable to 40-45k makes sense.

Well, it's year 20 for NYRB. Where is there 40,000 average attendance?

 

[BxLio91]

They're an energy drink billboard. One of the many reasons why we're here and not one of their forums.

 

[NYCFCfan]

Well, it's year 20 for NYRB. Where is there 40,000 average attendance?

In the city. Too bad they're out in the suburbs.

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

They're an energy drink billboard. One of the many reasons why we're here and not one of their forums.

That is the biggest reason I couldn't get into them. Are there any other teams in the world that use the name of a company for their team name?

 

[Seth]

That is the biggest reason I couldn't get into them. Are there any other teams in the world that use the name of a company for their team name?

Agreed. I was a bit interested in the Metrostars but when they changed their name to the Red Bulls for me at least I lost all interest. It was just too weird.

 

[Keith Putnam]

Are there any other teams in the world that use the name of a company for their team name?

Well, there are the other Red Bull teams, anyway.
VfL Wolfsburg isn't *named* after Volkswagen, but they're owned by Volkswagen and based in VW's company town.
Bayer Leverkusen is sponsored by Bayer (pharmaceuticals).
The 'P' in PSV Eindhoven stands for 'Philips', their sponsor.

And that's just the teams with an international profile.

 

[Kjbert]

In the city. Too bad they're out in the suburbs.

Can't pick and choose. I would love to see what the league attendance figures grew/dropped by year after year since 1996. Seattle skews the numbers the past few years. Expansion skews the numbers this year and probably in the Philly/Toronto/Montreal years as well.

The positive moves have come from SKC building a new stadium and now San Jose doing the same.

 

[Vallos]

I find it ironic that one would hate the Red Bulls because of its branding, yet accepts Etihad being plastered across our jersey. I see no difference between the two. In any event, my issue is not with the Red Bulls branding, but where they play.

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

Well, there are the other Red Bull teams, anyway.
VfL Wolfsburg isn't *named* after Volkswagen, but they're owned by Volkswagen and based in VW's company town.
Bayer Leverkusen is sponsored by Bayer (pharmaceuticals).
The 'P' in PSV Eindhoven stands for 'Philips', their sponsor.

And that's just the teams with an international profile.

what does the VfL stand for?

Bayer is egregious, PSV seems less so.

Red Bull takes the cake. Especially with those embarrassments for uniforms.

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

accepts Etihad being plastered across our jersey

Almost every team in the world has a sponsor on their kits.

 

[Vallos]

That is exactly my point, Tom. The Red Bulls, for all intents and purposes, are sponsors. They just happen to be owners as well.

 

[Fabio]

Well, it's year 20 for NYRB. Where is there 40,000 average attendance?

NYRB ??? NJRB....

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

That is exactly my point, Tom. The Red Bulls, for all intents and purposes, are sponsors. They just happen to be owners as well.

They changed the name of the team to their company name, and their uniforms go well beyond the name of a sponsor.

 

[Keith Putnam]

what does the VfL stand for?

"Verein für Leibesübungen", which translates literally to "association for physical education" but more likely would be translated as "sport club".

Their stadium, by the way, seats 30,000 and Wolfsburg took second place in the Bundesliga this past season and also won the league cup.

 

[Kjbert]

I always understood that NYRB were actually, "RedBull, New York" and not, "New York Red Bulls"

 

[Lasker]

I would love to see what the league attendance figures grew/dropped by year after year since 1996.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance

 

[Seth]

I find it ironic that one would hate the Red Bulls because of its branding, yet accepts Etihad being plastered across our jersey. I see no difference between the two. In any event, my issue is not with the Red Bulls branding, but where they play.

For me it wasn't the "branding" but more about the attitude, in a sense. The Metrostars were everyone's little ol' team, the lovable little guys playing in Giants Stadium in front of 5 or 10,000 people maybe. They were the underdogs, and New York's team. Then Red Bull came in and "corporatized" everything, making way too much noise, at least for me.

Sure, Etihad is on the shirt, but it's not Etihad FC playing in Etihad Stadium with Etihad hot dogs. And yes, I know they changed the name of the City of Manchester Stadium, and that totally pissed me off when they did it.

I'm not a huge Yankee fan but I love that it's still Yankee Stadium and not Ford Stadium™ or something. And I'm very happy that the MTA didn't rename the 7 stop to Citi Field (although they would have if Citi was willing to pay them to do it). I hate that practically everything in the universe is now name-sponsored. That's why I was totally bummed when they changed the New York's Metrostars into a corporate giant subsidiary.

One man's opinion.

 

[Vallos]

Seth, I certainly feel for those old Metrostars fans that had to endure the name change, or completely abandon the team because of it. I certainly would not support the team had I been a fan. For the record, as a new soccer enthusiast, I do not feel comfortable with sponsorship on jerseys, but it is what it is. As I stated earlier, I see no difference between having Red Bull and Etihad on jerseys. Both companies paid money, some more than others, to advertise their company in one form or another.