13 Responses to “Taking Attendance, 5/14/2012”

1. El Conductor Says:
   May 14th, 2012 at 10:40 am

   LOVE THE ATTENDANCE ARTICLES!
   As a fan NPSL squad, Chattanooga Football Club, I’ve always interested to see how the NPSL compares with the “other” premiere league – the PDL. I know here in the south, NPSL clubs fare well against their regional PDL counterparts. Is there any way you could put together a PDL/ NPSL preseason match up comparison? Pretty please?

2. KT Says:
   May 14th, 2012 at 10:50 am

   As I’ve said for years…I don’t have NPSL numbers. The NPSL makes no effort to announce numbers on a consistent, league-wide basis. They really don’t do anything on a consistent, league-wide basis.

3. OleGunnar20 Says:
   May 14th, 2012 at 11:33 am

   i’ve got all the same numbers for MLS and D2/D3.

   antigua barracudas with 1800, 1200, 800, 800, 800, 1000 seems just a tad suspicious to me … i get the distinct feeling they just make up a number to report to the league for the box score. but it is antigua so who really cares.

   between NASL and USLPro there are around 10 teams with very solid 3K plus attendance that would make a good foundation for a combined D2.

4. KT Says:
   May 14th, 2012 at 11:36 am

   Things are very different on the islands.

   And there’s a reason why some teams are where they are. Average announced attendance is not the be-all, end-all of how to stack teams in various divisions. I’d say there are enough solid organizations between the two to have a ten-team league, but the bridges that have been burned aren’t going to be re-constructed.

   If one or the other of those leagues can’t continue, then you might see an accommodation. But coming together of their own accord? Unlikely, it says here.

5. KT Says:
   May 14th, 2012 at 11:39 am

   Oh, and Charleston and Wilmington are not markets for whom D2 would make a lot of sense at this point in history, despite their decent figures. Those are pretty perfect D3 markets and, as they’re only 170 miles apart, need enough other.

6. chuck Says:
   May 15th, 2012 at 11:49 am

   My feeling is the Rochester to NASL bridge isn’t burned. Publicly it always looked like Rochester would continue in Div. II. It wasn’t until USL sued that the club recanted its stated desire and went to Div. III.

   But certainly Kenn’s correct that other factors ($) besides attendance figures are driving the decision.

   The real story is what will happen to attendance figures (rather, to profitability, but we use attendance as a surrogate for success/profitability because we aren’t privy to the dollar figures) in a year with no internal turmoil? I mean, all of last year’s teams returned save Montreal, which was expected. San Antonio shows early signs of being a model franchise and a competent replacement. Rochester seems to have stabilized since going insolvent a few years back. Minnesota still lacks an owner, but at least is no longer named after its field (and has marginally improved its crest!). Ft. Lauderdale’s move from Miami and rebranding is an improvement–hey, improvement from ’0′ is still improvement. The Aztex move to Orlando seems to be working. Charleston is a rock of lower division stability and competency.

   It’s early, I know. But there are a lot of good things happening. Or, at the very least, there isn’t the usual upheaval.

   Yet.

7. admin Says:
   May 15th, 2012 at 3:20 pm

   Barring any contractual obligations that can’t be negotiated/mediated, I guess anybody’s fair game to join anybody else.

   Is Rochester losing less or more money than they were in D2, do you think? I don’t know. That might enter into it.

   As will “How vehemently will one league or another fight someone who tries to leave?”

8. chuck Says:
   May 18th, 2012 at 12:25 pm

   Yeah, we just saw what one legal dispute can do to parties with no money (RIP WPS).

   Perhaps the financial concerns relate to the new USSF rules more than anything else? I mean, I can’t imaging front office salaries, marketing budgets, travel expenses, or facility rentals would vary much if a team is Div. II or III (even in spite of USL Pro’s once vaunted plan to keep down travel expenses by being a “regional” league–that “region” now being from LA to Antigua). Perhaps player salaries vary considerably, but I doubt it. And I don’t think attendance, concessions, or merchandise sales for one franchise would change much if it went up or down a league at this level. And there is no broadcasting revenue to worry about. So the decision, I think, comes down to franchise fees and so-called “financial viability” requirements.

   Is the USSF enforcing the requirements it imposed last year on Div. II? Requiring a club to have an owner with 35% controlling interest and a net worth of at least $20m seems a bit steep for a NASL team. Perhaps Rob Clark, the 39 year-old Rhino owner, doesn’t qualify and isn’t willing to bring in partners (assuming he wants to the Rhinos in NASL, that is).

9. KT Says:
   May 18th, 2012 at 1:22 pm

   Chuck, seriously…it’s not like WPS was at all a well cat before the Borislow litigation. I mean, they and their adherents are using that as a cause rather than a detail.

   And, actually, staffing and player salaries absolutely vary considerably from MOST D2 teams to MOST D3 teams (with exceptions) and even among teams in the same league (that has always been the case).

   What happens when a team changes levels is a change in all the budgets based on anticipated revenue. Let’s take a team that drops from D2 to D3. Most of the time they do that because they’re spending too much (in all areas) for their revenue to absorb. So in doing so, they start to jettison staff (particularly sales staff) and players and slash budget line items (including advertising and marketing).

   When you slash staff and marketing/advertising budgets, you are removing things from the equation that actually generate attendance and merchandise sales and all that revenue generation stuff. That stuff doesn’t just “happen” whether there’s someone in the office to deal with it or not.

   (Orlando and – apparently – Rochester very likely had the largest player budgets in D3 last year, while Pittsburgh’s was nowhere near what those guys were spending. And Orlando at first had a bunch of 2nd division legacy contracts that they were tied to. But even within leagues, some teams spend way more than others on players, and always have.)

   There are teams at every level that are better-run than teams at a level above them and some that are worse-run than teams at a level below them. It’s not a perfect collection of organizations, no league ever has been or likely will be.

   But the idea – in general – that revenue and expense (particularly player and staff expense) isn’t largely variable between divisions is ridiculous. Because it is.

10. KT Says:
    May 18th, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    (Someone like a Charleston kept doing the same things they had been doing, which made their drop fairly seamless for them. Someone like a Vancouver stepped up their game from a marketing and front-office standpoint – and capitalized, obviously, on the fact that it’s cool to be in MLS now – but didn’t do that well on the player front, which is why they struggled their first year. But most teams aren’t that smart when they drop, which is why – as you saw in a prior post – most teams that drop go out of business within a few years. Dropping is more a move along the Desperation Timeline than anything else.)

11. sidereal Says:
    May 31st, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    “last year’s WPS champions, Western New York, getting 1,304 to theirs. Obviously, it helps to have Alex Morgan.”

    Actually, they don’t have Morgan. She’s playing for the Sounders, alongside Solo, Rapinoe, Leroux, Cox, Winters, etc. But only about half the season as the Olympics will take over for the national team players.

    Still, on the strength of that star power, the Sounders Women are going to pull a couple thousand a match.

12. admin Says:
    May 31st, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Ummmm….that’s what I meant. I KNOW they don’t have Alex Morgan. It helps TO have Alex Morgan, and when you DON’T have Alex Morgan, you get 1,304 a game when last year you got 4,881. Capiche?

13. sidereal Says:
    June 1st, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Ah, got it. It read like the attendance was being favorably compared to Chesapeake’s 400.

    4500 for the Seattle opener. Definitely a Morgan effect, though Veronica Perez has actually been the best player on the team.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website