San Antonio Saints Or Marlins?

[RedScare]

I think MLS at the AlamoDome would be great, and very successful. San Antonio seems to have a demographic which could actually use as many seats as the Alamodome could offer.

Sounds like someone didn't watch the New York/D.C. game on ESPN this weekend. 8,500 in Giants Stadium, and it looked like less than that.

Two things (some) soccer fans should realize...

1. A 75% empty stadium is possibly the most dreadful and excitement draining experience in sports, and,

2. Soccer will not draw much more than 20,000 in average attendance for several years.

LA has much better demographics than SA, and they average 23,000. Houston and Dallas, with similar demographics to SA, draw 21,000 and 17,000 respectively. And, don't generalize Hispanics. You yourselves said SA is wild about the Cowboys. That would be American football, and seems to blow a hole in your "Hispanics love soccer, so this will work" theory.

[Subdude]

The San Antonio Chargers?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5526234

If anything, it will be LA Chargers. The NFL has made it clear that is the next move/expansion.

[tamtagon]

Sounds like someone didn't watch the New York/D.C. game on ESPN this weekend. 8,500 in Giants Stadium, and it looked like less than that.

Two things (some) soccer fans should realize...

1. A 75% empty stadium is possibly the most dreadful and excitement draining experience in sports, and,

2. Soccer will not draw much more than 20,000 in average attendance for several years.

LA has much better demographics than SA, and they average 23,000. Houston and Dallas, with similar demographics to SA, draw 21,000 and 17,000 respectively. And, don't generalize Hispanics. You yourselves said SA is wild about the Cowboys. That would be American football, and seems to blow a hole in your "Hispanics love soccer, so this will work" theory.

Personally, I enjoy soccer about as much as I enjoy ice hockey - not much, and I dont care to learn the ins/outs of the game to appreciate it more. A whole lotta basketball, football and a little baseball is to my taste.

I never said SA is wild about the Cowboys, but would agree with whomever said it; same thing in Austin too, they love the Cowboys.

Since the Spurs are the only big sports team in SA, an futbol team might have an easier time - less competition - attracting a big crowd, the underserved sports fan being the key demographic.

[DJ V Lawrence]

If anything, it will be LA Chargers. The NFL has made it clear that is the next move/expansion.

I can't see an existing NFL team to want to move to L.A. if the city's not willing to put any money up for the stadium, so I'd be expecting a fight or compromise of some sort.

[tamtagon]

I can't see an existing NFL team to want to move to L.A. if the city's not willing to put any money up for the stadium, so I'd be expecting a fight or compromise of some sort.

Hopefully, LA will be the metro area which ends the cycle of municipalities mortgaging revenue future for the sake of a professional sports team.

[RedScare]

Hopefully, LA will be the metro area which ends the cycle of municipalities mortgaging revenue future for the sake of a professional sports team.

Agreed. And if San Diego wants to leave and LA says no stadium, THAT would be even better. And if San Antonio says you use the AlamoDome or nothing, that would be BEST.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Hopefully, LA will be the metro area which ends the cycle of municipalities mortgaging revenue future for the sake of a professional sports team.

Be real, my friend. If S.A. didn't have the AlamoDome, they couldn't do what L.A. is doing and still get a team. L.A. has something the NFL wants, and no other city without an NFL team can offer.

To RedScare, I agree, and I think that's exactly why S.A. may have a better chance than L.A. at landing the team if they move in '08. I just don't think they have the population to support NBA, NFL, and MLB. I do think that MLS has a shot there, because I have heard that there are a lot of soccer fans there, and anytime there's a game in the A.Dome, they have a healthy attendance. BUT MLS's chances to me are better in S.A. if they and the Spurs are the only two teams in town

[RedScare]

I think you are right. SA could support 2 franchises, but is probably not big enough for 3 or more. Frankly, they are close as far as MLB goes, but with Austin next door, it might work out. NFL they could do, and MLS easily.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I think you are right. SA could support 2 franchises, but is probably not big enough for 3 or more. Frankly, they are close as far as MLB goes, but with Austin next door, it might work out. NFL they could do, and MLS easily.

Could Austin support MLB?

[RedScare]

I doubt it. It is smaller than SA. Two things seem to affect whether these cities can support a franchise, ticket sales and TV market. In MLB, there are 81 home games in a 40-50 thousand seat stadium. Lots of tickets. Season ticket package is expensive. It takes a large population base to support that.

Likewise, the other way teams make money is TV revenue. Revenue is based on the size of the market. In fact, SA is apparently not a problem for ticket sales. It is a problem for Market size. Austin is even smaller.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I doubt it. It is smaller than SA. Two things seem to affect whether these cities can support a franchise, ticket sales and TV market. In MLB, there are 81 home games in a 40-50 thousand seat stadium. Lots of tickets. Season ticket package is expensive. It takes a large population base to support that.

Likewise, the other way teams make money is TV revenue. Revenue is based on the size of the market. In fact, SA is apparently not a problem for ticket sales. It is a problem for Market size. Austin is even smaller.

I would imagine ticket sales not being too much of a problem considering the amount of people there with that kind of money to spend, plus the idea of S.A. residence supporting that team with extra sales and TV market; kinda similar to how Fort Worth, Arlington, and Irving do with Dallas's franchises. Is that accurate, or too far fetched?

[RedScare]

Is that accurate, or too far fetched?

I think these are exactly the kinds of questions that are being asked by the Marlins.

[ProHouston]

I would imagine ticket sales not being too much of a problem considering the amount of people there with that kind of money to spend, plus the idea of S.A. residence supporting that team with extra sales and TV market; kinda similar to how Fort Worth, Arlington, and Irving do with Dallas's franchises. Is that accurate, or too far fetched?

I think that's the problem. SA is not a rich town, it's on the poor side, though slowly moving toward the median. Furthermore, it has a weak corporate base. Austin is much more affluent and corporate as a whole than SA, but much smaller. Also, they're much further apart (distance wise) than Dallas and Fort Worth so I'm not sure an SA team would draw much from Austin, at least not that many across 80 games. I think the NFL could draw from further away.

If you combined the SA and Austin market for tv it would look a lot better, but I don't think they would when deciding where to place a sports team. That is unless they put the team in San Marcos or New Braunfels.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Check this out...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12484231/from/RL.3/

L.A. has just announced plans for a $800 million dollar renovation of the L.A. Coliseum, and play to show these plans to the NFL on May 2 in Dallas. Oh, and the city of Los Angeles expects the NFL to pay all $800 million for the stadium, whereas all the other cities in America had to use taxpayer money to keep their teams. Hopefully, the NFL will recognize San Antonio's attempts, spending, and efforts to bring an NFL team to the Alamo City in, say, 3024.

If L.A. wins this bid, San Antonio has officially been Punked. I'll be mad if the NFL tries ANY funny business to not let a team move to S.A. after this announcement, especially knowing that they already built a stadium WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, for an NFL stadium....without the NFL's help. And I'll be expecting every major city to publicly question their deals with their professional team's stadiums should the NFL say "just this once"...

[ProHouston]

Check this out...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12484231/from/RL.3/

L.A. has just announced plans for a $800 million dollar renovation of the L.A. Coliseum, and play to show these plans to the NFL on May 2 in Dallas. Oh, and the city of Los Angeles expects the NFL to pay all $800 million for the stadium, whereas all the other cities in America had to use taxpayer money to keep their teams. Hopefully, the NFL will recognize San Antonio's attempts, spending, and efforts to bring an NFL team to the Alamo City in, say, 3024.

If L.A. wins this bid, San Antonio has officially been Punked. I'll be mad if the NFL tries ANY funny business to not let a team move to S.A. after this announcement, especially knowing that they already built a stadium WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, for an NFL stadium....without the NFL's help. And I'll be expecting every major city to publicly question their deals with their professional team's stadiums should the NFL say "just this once"...

I don't understand why it would cost $800 million when they already own the land! That's a crazy number, it's crazy to expect the NFL to pay for it, and it's crazy to not give SA a chance.

So what, Bob McNair has to pay $700 million for a franchise to come to Houston (not including the $ we all spent on Reliant), and the NFL could end up giving an $800 million stadium to LA and a free team?!?

That's absurd!

[RedScare]

I think the story said it wrong. If this were to happen, the NFL would likely lend the money at low interest to get it built. The new team would then pay back the money as rent. I believe New England borrowed from the NFL to get their new stadium built.

As for owners, clearly, an existing owner would not have to pay to move to LA. If there were a new team, they would pay an entry fee like McNair did. I doubt there will be an expansion from 32 teams. The number works exceedingly well.

Whether this happens is a simple equation. If the NFL gets bigger TV revenue with an LA team than it costs to get a stadium built, they are in. If not, they stay out.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I don't understand why it would cost $800 million when they already own the land! That's a crazy number, it's crazy to expect the NFL to pay for it, and it's crazy to not give SA a chance.

So what, Bob McNair has to pay $700 million for a franchise to come to Houston (not including the $ we all spent on Reliant), and the NFL could end up giving an $800 million stadium to LA and a free team?!?

That's absurd!

Dude, great point! No current NFL stadium (or ANY American stadium) cost more than $600 million to build from the ground up. $800 million for upgrading an existing stadium sounds crazy to me too, especially when you hear in the video that the exterior of the stadium would remain the same, and there's no retractable roof with this. What in the world are they planning to do to the stadium that would make the cost of it $800 million? L.A. Coliseum doesn't look like a stadium that needs more than $300 million put into it's interior for it to become a premier football stadium. In fact, those initial blueprints for the new Coliseum didn't look like anyone needed to spend more than $200 million on it. Couldn't that price tag be a negative factor on L.A. coming May 2nd?

Why couldn't L.A. just say "we want the NFL stadium to be an upgraded Coliseum, and y'all pay for everything", then let the NFL decide how much money was needed for an upgrade? Then the NFL agreed on that price (which wouldn't probably be more than 1/4 what L.A. wants in it), move their precious Raiders back to L.A., and everyone's happy, except the people that love to trash Oakland everytime they lose. L.A. giving a ridiculous price and asking the NFL to pay 100% sounds foolish. I say No Deal if I were Jerry Jones. What does the Banker have to say 'bout that?

Yo RedScare, say an existing team chose to move to the AlamoDome in the coming years. Would they be expected to pay the NFL anything?

[RedScare]

Yo RedScare, say an existing team chose to move to the AlamoDome in the coming years. Would they be expected to pay the NFL anything?

Nope.

The fee McNair paid was the right to join the can't lose money club that is the NFL. Since the number of teams in the league increased from 31 to 32, each owners percentage of combined revenue (i.e., TV) dropped from 3.23% to 3.125%. Bob had to make up for that by paying a franchise fee.

If an existing team moves to LA or SA, the percentage stays the same, so no new franchise fee would be paid.

[Subdude]

San Antonio's setting of a deadline to the Marlins illustrates that they don't know how stadium blackmail is supposed to work.

Fish trouble in River City

That May 15 deadline for the Florida Marlins to decide on moving to San Antonio has worked out about as well as expected: Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff says he hasn't heard from Marlins execs since then, and that "every day that goes by, I think there is less and less chance of getting anything done." Wolff also canceled an upcoming meeting with the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce to discuss luring the Marlins, explaining, "I don't think there is any reason to meet until we know if this thing is going to go any further."

The dalliance with the River City may have paid off for the Fish, though: The city of Hialeah and Miami-Dade County are now floating the idea of a tax-increment financing district to skim off property taxes from new development and redirect them to pay off a Marlins stadium. I've harped on the pitfalls of TIFs before, so suffice to say this is one battle that San Antonio could end winning by losing.

[Subdude]

Having setting May 15 as the move-or-get-off-the-pot date for the Florida Marlins, San Antonio city officials yesterday informed the team that it was withdrawing its offer of $200 million in public stadium funds. For now. Though Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said he'd "happily re-engage in discussions" if the Fish first "determine they want to move the franchise to San Antonio."

Added Mayor Phil Hardberger of the city's failed runs at the Marlins and the New Orleans Saints: "The truth is these exercises are not costing San Antonio anything. They are actually kind of fun. Most of us enjoyed having the Saints here ... It's kind of like a date that doesn't lead to marriage, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's not fun."

[ProHouston]

I say let's drop the MLB, the market is too small anyhow. Let's focus our efforts on the Chargers and Bills. The Chronicle speculated that each of these teams may be looking for a new home.

San Antonio Pulls Marlins Offer

[Trophy Property]

Sounds like someone didn't watch the New York/D.C. game on ESPN this weekend. 8,500 in Giants Stadium, and it looked like less than that.

Two things (some) soccer fans should realize...

1. A 75% empty stadium is possibly the most dreadful and excitement draining experience in sports, and,

2. Soccer will not draw much more than 20,000 in average attendance for several years.

LA has much better demographics than SA, and they average 23,000. Houston and Dallas, with similar demographics to SA, draw 21,000 and 17,000 respectively. And, don't generalize Hispanics. You yourselves said SA is wild about the Cowboys. That would be American football, and seems to blow a hole in your "Hispanics love soccer, so this will work" theory.

BINGO. You are correct. The Dynamo playing at Robertson is the best place for them. I have been to a couple of games and it seems full. If that same 20k were at Reliant it would look horrible.

[DJ V Lawrence]

BINGO. You are correct. The Dynamo playing at Robertson is the best place for them. I have been to a couple of games and it seems full. If that same 20k were at Reliant it would look horrible.

A successful World Cup could boost that attendance up long-term. They did a smart job starting off a Robertson and having steady attendance. If they keep increasing in ticket sales each year, the front-office is doing their job well. Let's see where they stand 3 years from now before ever talking about a permanent Dynamo stadium so we know if they could fill up a bigger stadium or not

To RedScare, look at how many sports teams are flooding the NYC/NJ market. 2 in the NFL, 3 in NBA/WNBA, 3 in NHL, 2 in baseball, etc. I'm not surprised Redbull NY had that attendance, because it's hard to market yourself as the league to watch when you're the newest out of all of them, and when local news probably doesn't talk about and analyse their games the way they would any of the other teams.

San Antonio would be much more successful in the Alamodome if that MLS team started there before any MLB or NFL team moved to S.A., because they could at least claim loyalty to S.A. on their side. 2-3 teams in one marketplace gives MLS more room to expand than a city like NYC, where they're so flooded with them, and no excitement is build around their wins, draft, all-star, etc.

[tamtagon]

!!Go Spurs!!

[DJ V Lawrence]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Las Vegas now is making another push for the San Diego Chargers. It looks like LV, L.A., and S.A. could all be fighting for the team should they not have a San Diego stadium plan in play after the 2008 season. San Antonio already has AlamoDome ready to go, L.A. has a guaranteed NFL team before 2010 with a L.A. Collisium $700 Million revamp paid for by the NFL, and Las Vegas is home to Chargers owner Alex Spanos.

[Trae]

San Antonio has no chance.

[DJ V Lawrence]

San Antonio has no chance.

The fact that the new mayor didn't pursue an MLS team into Alamodome like the last one did, yet still expects either to lure an NFL team to the Dome or spend over $150 Million for a new baseball stadium for the Marlins, shows how unrealistic he is.

Is Alamodome making money for San Antonio?

[Trae]

I think San Antonio thinks they are larger than they really are. I get that from people (especially at SSP).

[Subdude]

The fact that the new mayor didn't pursue an MLS team into Alamodome like the last one did, yet still expects either to lure an NFL team to the Dome or spend over $150 Million for a new baseball stadium for the Marlins, shows how unrealistic he is.

Is Alamodome making money for San Antonio?

Certainly the Alamodome must be a big money-loser.

I wouldn't read too much into that article. The NFL has already committed one or perhaps two franchises to LA. If the Chargers were to start looking outside LA, it's a sure bet the NFL would turn up the heat big-time to get them into LA. In terms of markets, Las Vegas or San Antonio are both way down the list in terms of desirability.

[banking214]

The next NFL team goes to LA. When you are talking baseball, I could see a team for the SA/Austin market. Not sure if it would be 2 years or 10 though. Just make sure the owners of the Rangers and Astros are against it. You think they want to see another team taking away money?