Stan Collins

Why do the Dynamo want to build such a small stadium compares to other MLS venues? Being in Houston, there should be plenty of demand to satisfy at least a 25,000 seat stadium. I don't get it. If they do build it to hold 20,000, they better make sure it will be expandable for future growth. Don't the Dynamo have pretty good attendance as well?

Unfortunately it looks like it would be a problem, because the stadium would probably try to compete to host music concerts (the Dynamo are part owned by Philip Anschutz, who owns the promotion company AEG Live) and boxing matches (they are also part owned by Oscar de la Hoya, who owns Golden Boy Productions).

WHY are you posting articles written IN 1998 to bolster your argument!

Your arguments against this stadium have generally been contradictory and unsupported by facts. However, when you post 12 YEAR OLD stories in an effort to fake people out, I have to forcefully call BS.

I appreciate your post, and it caused me to reconsider, and really look at the issue. On attendance - I stand corrected, and thank you:

Attendances

• Record home attendance: 70,550 v Los Angeles Galaxy at Reliant Stadium^[3], 2006 Major League Soccer season, 9 August 2006
• Record home attendance at Robertson Stadium: 30,972 v Kansas City Wizards, 2007 MLS Cup Playoffs, 10 November 2007
• Record away attendance: 30,000 v Club de Futbol Pachuca at Estadio Hidalgo, 2007 CONCACAF Champions Cup, 5 April 2007
• Record League attendance at a neutral site: 39,859 v New England Revolution at RFK Stadium, 2007 MLS Cup, 18 November 2007

My false supposition is probably rooted in my strong dislike of the conduct at the games ( Lived in Europe ). Violence seems to be the thread that attracts. I've been in sports all of my life in several countries, and soccer I steer clear of. I know there are fans, and players who are out of control in any competitive sport, however soccer, worldwide needs some heavy policing. I will honor what the voters will. I do admit the deal they are proposing has solid business sense.

• 
  

In-game violence is almost completely a thing of the past in Western European countries. Better policing, stadium architecture, limits on alcohol, and more expensive tickets have driven it away. Nowadays what's left of the hooligan element in Western Europe gets in fights outside the stadiums. They have to pre-arrange these fights on some street corner, the game itself is almost unconnected. But you go to a game today in the richer countries of Europe (let alone the US), you'd be surprised how family-friendly the atmosphere is.

If the deal does go through, then the whole of the value of the land (including the costs of purchasing and preparing the land) is treated as a contribution to the entity that will own the stadium, presumably Anschutz Entertainment Group.

The one thing this type of discussion does show, though, is that the devil is in the details.

WHO CARES?

Good work Captain Oblivious!

Yeah, renovating the Astrodome would be expensive and would STILL probably produce a pretty poor soccer venue. It's just a fool's errand.

Devil's in the details, but you gotta admit this deal doesn't look much like some of the lock, stock and barrel deals of the past.

Here's the million-dollar question though. Will Superliga become the next UEFA Champions Cup in the world of sports, or will it become meaningless?

Beckham will inspire some curiosity (remember, Madrid is a very popular club in the entire Spanish speaking world). Even if he's not there in time for the tournament (which he isn't currently scheduled to be, unless LA makes the elimination rounds), there will be extra eyes on MLS.

MLS will have the advantage this first time of playing at home, in midseason (preseason in Mexico). If MLS gets off to a flying start with these initial watchers, this tourney may get traction. If Mexico waltzes through, it might not, since Mexico's schedule is very crowded.

If you would re-read my initial post you would find that I never mentioned soccer not having strategy. That would be a idiots analogy. I was simply stating that it wasn't remotely as strategic as football, and that's a fact, if you understand both games. . . .

Football is far more complicated than soccer on almost any level. Let's please not argue about that.

Football is more complicated than soccer on exactly *one* level--the coaching level. Football's a war simulation, where the generals devise all the strategy.

The quarterback might have the authority of, say, a captain, but each action and its possibilities are scripted for him. In contrast, soccer the players create the 'plays' from the situation, and the central ones devise the campaigns, leaving only the grand strategy to the coaches, which would make them all roughly major through colonel level.

Sorry, I dozed off.

As for being the hottest ticket in SoCal -- I agree with you. There will be an initial groundswell of interest, fueled by hype. Once the demographic that matters realizes that the game is not that interesting, it will wane, though. It's just like NHL. Your LA Kings example is a perfect one for stating my point.

But the NHL carries on, much stronger than pre-Gretzky. Some may consider it "major league" and some may not, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to a league with payrolls in the tens of millions, franchise values in the hundreds of millions, and an overall valuation in the billions. A league that survived a nearly two-year nuclear winter with all its franchises intact. No Gretzky, and this Does----Not----Happen.

The most delicious irony here is that the guy who would be able to tell you the most about Gretzky's long term impact for the Kings--the guy who owns them now--is Philip Frederick Anschutz, coincidentally the same guy who owns the Galaxy and is paying Beckham all that money now. ! And he's got about $8 Billion that says he knows more about business than you.

I just don't understand why after just one year at Robertson, Dynamo would already consider a permanent 25K stadium, especially considering the fact that larger soccer events would probably still be held at Reliant instead.

I'd say it boils down to two reasons--control of luxury suites, and cost of rent. In the short term, Reliant costs so much to open up that you might make more money (remember, you can also charge a bit more for tickets if they are more scarce) in "Dynamo Stadium" for, say, a match between two mid-tier Mexican teams in an Interliga match than at Reliant, even if it would have drawn 10-15k more fans at Reliant. The only kind match that would clearly do better at Reliant is the type of "mega-vent" that would come close to selling it out--eg the Club America vs Barcelona game, or a Mexico vs USA national team match. Those might well stay.

Luxury suites are the long term concern, but it's the presence of big games that helps drive rich people to pay for the suites. Red Bull Arena in New York will be attempting to rent out 60+ of them or 65K apiece (that's $4 Million a year if they pull it off). Houston obviously won't be able to match that (in NY, you're benefitting from the fact that Giants Stadium charges four times even that amount). But hosting a stream of extra events could be worth a good $1 Million a year to the Dynamo, even if you only broke even on the events themselves.

Here's another variable: What happens if/when MLS becomes a success in the next couple years? During this off-season, MLS announced that they could be courting some of soccer's biggest draws to the league, including players like Ronaldino, Beckham, and Henry.

More importantly, I think MLS is going after something more like an NBA model, whereby they charge a fortune for the suites and the front row--originally, they were thinking like they were NFL owners from 50-60 years ago, drawing ever-increasing crowds in large, rented stadiums, but that business model proved not to work, and these days, you can increase your bottom line almost as well by charging a few very rich people an amazing amount of money as you can by converting the masses (and the former's a lot easier, to boot).

If they designed it right, they could also build a 25k seater that you could squeeze 35k in for important matches (they were looking at that kind of design in Cleveland), or they could add a second deck if and when that's necessary (I suspect that could be done in Toronto, for instance, if the team becomes popular enough to justify it).

i gave you 2 chances for the free pass to the real world......i think you just missed the boarding call.

The soccer stadium will cost 1/10th-1/8th as much, the public may well pay 1/25th as much (if the city negotiates well), and it'll host more events.

Well, the Dynamo had exactly ZERO sellouts...why do they merit a new stadium? Especially one that would be footed by taxpayers?

The Dynamo's best-attended game was their first game: 25,462. They drew 23,107 for the conference final.

Also, the Dynamo host 4 times as many games as the Cougars do.

--

And you add in youth soccer tournaments, Mexican friendlies, National Team matches, high school football, concerts, etc. These things can work in a Dynamo stadium more than in a Reliant, because Reliant costs $250k just to open the doors. They often can't work at Robertson because of all the restrictions the U of H puts on the place. (They had to get special permission to host a 21st game last year, and they're running into trouble scheduling the MLS versus Mexican League and North American championship tournaments they've been invited to because they won the championship last year, because of University restrictions.)

There's plenty good reason to build a Dynamo stadium, and plenty of value for the dollar it can provide to Houston as long as you work out a partnership whereby the team has to kick in for the cost, and the city has access to a certain number of game days.

When it comes to building stadiums, the regular tenant is almost irrelevant. Think of this not as a "soccer stadium" but as "a ~20k outdoor venue" that happens to host a soccer team.

Actually Professional Soccer has been in Texas and the US since 1967! It is hardly in any sort of infancy. After the 1966 World Cup Final, two rival professional soccer leagues were formed in the United States. After one year, they combined to form the North American Soccer League which lasted from 1967/68 until 1984. The Dallas Tornado's were part of the NASL from 1967-1981 winning the league championship in 1971 over the Atlanta Chiefs. There was a two year lull in there until the Major Indoor Soccer League was started in 1982 and is still active today, Major League Soccer was formed and on June 6, 1995 and is still active today. So in 38 years they should have a better following, but you are more than likely seeing it's peak.

As to the financial side, league finances have measurably improved every year since about 2001. An MLS franchise has never been worth more than it is today, and MLS gets its first national TV rights fees starting next season, at $20 Million a year. To feed off the last post, the NFL would laugh at that money, but that's not an excuse for you and I.

If one was to assert that MLS would someday be as popular as Major League Baseball or the NFL, there'd be no tangible evidence to back that claim up. But there's even less grounds for claiming that MLS has already peaked, in that there's actually pretty weighty evidence against it.

I should have specified here in the United States.

How do I know its not more popular? Because for its Championship game it could only get a stadium with 20,000 seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_Cup

You want MLS to be successful? You need prime-time games times. During football season I'd go with a Wednesday or Saturday 7pm start time. Hold the event at an NFL footaball stadium. Hell, just look how the Superbowl is ran. Untill then, I'll still be cutting the grass, BBQing, watching football, shopping, or napping on my Sunday afternoons.

And for that metter, it took the NFL a long danged time to get to that point, too. Their first championship game that anyone outside of the cities involved cared about was 1958, and the league had been founded in 1919. The NFL was an overnight sensation. . . after a generation of hard work.

^ thanks for clearing it up.where is its home games played?

Chivas USA play in the Home Depot Center in Carson, CA. It's the same stadium the LA Galaxy play in.

Hi, I thought I'd share a few bits so you know what the Dynamo's angle is and have some of the questions posed in this thread answered. And yes, that's Houston's soccer team.

Houston is seeking a stadium for the following reasons, and roughly in order from least important to most:

5) Permanent football lines are distracting and a little irritating at a soccer game.

4) 30k seats is a little larger than what the Dynamo want. They'll try to buld 20-25k.

3) They're currently paying U of H $1.8 Million for their three year lease

2) They're not getting all the revenue they could from parking and concessions

1) They don't have access to luxury suites, stadium naming rights, etc to sell

1a) They can't control other events (the company that owns them, AEG, also owns a concert promotion company) in the stadium

So, the Dynamo are looking to build something fitted a little smaller, one where they keep all the revenues they generate, and one that can double as a outdoor concert arena (judging by how this has been done lately, a permanent stage at one end is not unlikely). I'm not surprised they are teaming up with the schools to provide a high school football venue as well. The new stadium for FC Dallas, PIzza Hut Park in Frisco (where the Dynamo will be playing the MLS Cup Final) is a model in that regard:

http://pizzahutpark.com/

http://pizzahutpark.com/Home/TheStadium/Se...05/Default.aspx

In last night's playoff game (the Western Conference finals, which the Dynamo won 3-1 in front of 23,000), team GM (and former Sports Authority exec) Oliver Luck said they were considering 6 or 7 potential sites. I would assume both downtown and Delmar are on that list. (The football lines in that case wouldn't be a problem because they'd be washable).