Angel signs for the Red Bulls

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

26/04/2007, 10:28 AM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metrostars

I've been away so I havent had a chance to read this thread until now. Just some background on me, I'm from Galway and supported GUFC (still do from afar) until I moved to the US 15 years ago.

I love the game of soccer as all of us do here but for me it is important to support my local team. So as to the Franchise versus Euro-Style club debate, I and many more like me dont have any choice. It's either support NYRB or just follow the Man Utds or Milan or Barcelona by watching on TV. It's like the whole LOI argument. Why do more Irish people support English teams than Irish teams? Sure, I would prefer to have a local club that is not owned by a fizzy drink company. But thats all there is for me here.

It did hurt when the fizzy drink company bought the Metrostars. But what were the Metrostars anyway? A franchise. The original team back in 1996 was created by the Metromedia company and aptly named it the Metrostars. It was then sold to AEG, an entertainment company who also owns a few other MLS teams as well as the LA Kings hockey and a few more hockey teams in Europe. Red Bull unashamidly is using the team as a marketing tool. We the fans do not have much choice in the matter. We can either go along for the ride or sit at home at watch teams play 3000 miles away on TV. But to disparage the fans who go to games regulary and know the game just as much as other fans around the world do as "goonish", "no support or identity" and "don't give a sh!t" would be the same if I said the same thing about Cork City or Drogheda etc.

I must say however that Red Bull have done more in 13 months then the other owners did in the previous 10 years. They brought in the best US manager (Arena), the best US player (Reyna) among others and started builing a new stadium: http://www.redbullpark.com/stadium_vision.html

As for the small crowds. Well there are a ton of reasons that would take all day to explain. MLS suffers from a lot of the same stigma that the LOI does especially regardin the standard of play. Add into the mix the ANTI-soccer types and the ones who ignore it because "its a foreign game" and it is always facing an uphill battle.

Is the GAA in america to:D (for GAA fans I'm only jesting so please take it as intended)
26/04/2007, 10:38 AM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

I don't disagree with you.

This whole bullsh!t series of posts arose because Poor Student accused me of being "ignorant" for saying NY/NJ had poor support, no history and no tradition. When the facts clearly support this assertion, and I've posted the rationale to show that (I note that he's gone quiet since then...).

So can we quit with the whole bleeding heart 'one of my fans is just as good as one of yours, sniffle' nonesense, as it's not the issue here.

Every team has to start somewhere and if some one has supported a team for 10 years no matter if that was from it's founding season, will have a love for the team and will justifibly be very upset if there team, that they love has went to the wall. Franchised or not.

Also this thing about 15 million people live there with only 10,000 going to the football. Let's just think about this for a moment. In America they have 100 times more attractions than this island. The LOI is competing against GAA.

In America they are competing with, European football on tv, they are competing against American sports, Basketball, American Football & Ice Hockey.

That's not to mention the amount that follow wrestling, golf & tennis. All things that people on this island do not have to compete with(Excluding European football)

Although the club is a very young club, they have a history albeit not a very big one.

MK Dons(Wimbledon) have a history, but they only get crowds the size of Linfields/Derrys/Shelbourne/Cork etc. Which club would be more valuable to the league? One with history but nothing else to offer, or one with 3 times the support with financial backing and no history? I know which one I'd rather have in my league.
26/04/2007, 12:26 PM
Metrostars

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

Every team has to start somewhere and if some one has supported a team for 10 years no matter if that was from it's founding season, will have a love for the team and will justifibly be very upset if there team, that they love has went to the wall. Franchised or not.

Also this thing about 15 million people live there with only 10,000 going to the football. Let's just think about this for a moment. In America they have 100 times more attractions than this island. The LOI is competing against GAA.

In America they are competing with, European football on tv, they are competing against American sports, Basketball, American Football & Ice Hockey.

That's not to mention the amount that follow wrestling, golf & tennis. All things that people on this island do not have to compete with(Excluding European football)

Well there should be better crowds than 10,000 in any case. There are more then enough immigrants in the Tri-state area whose first sport is soccer.

To expand on my earlier post about the reasons why MLS is poorly supported....

- Most immigrants whos first love is soccer whether they are European or Latino brush aside MLS as being a poor standard. They are correct in way but the only way the standard can get better is more money. Money comes from better fan support. It's a big circle.

- As dcfcsteve rightly pointed out - lack of tradition. Yes this is also a factor among immigrants.

- Poor marketing by MLS - as opposed to European clubs who are more of whole community club, MLS clubs used to market mainly to families and youth teams. Thus adding to the label of it only being a kids sport by anti-soccer types.

- Americanized gimmicks at the start of MLS such as the countdown clock (90 minutes down to 0), the shootout after a draw etc that the soccer purists hated. These gimmicks are gone now but that stuff did drive away a lot of people.

- Lack of/no coverage in the media. Turn on the local NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX news in New York and in the sport section they will cover baseball, basketball, American football, ice hockey, golf and nothing else. If people dont see soccer in the news it is perceived as unimportant. Coverage is gradually getting better on ESPN though.

- Small crowds in huge stadiums. It isnt a lot of fun going to Giants Stadium where the capacity is 80,000 with only 10,000 people in it. Poor atmoshere also drives people away. Not to mention the American football lines on the ground starting in August showing up the team as being a second class tenant at the stadium. This is being remedied by new smaller stadiums (20K=30K) but this is a slow process. This will also help with the bottom line as teams in NFL stadiums do not earn any ancillary money e.g. parking, concessions etc plus also have to pay rent ($100K per game at GS).

- As we touched on earlier, the Anti-Soccer types. I really do not think anything can be done about these people. They are usually dormant more of the time but they wake up during every world cup. But they are not needed anyway.

These are just a few off the top of my head.
26/04/2007, 4:15 PM
Poor Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

(I note that he's gone quiet since then...).

Well, wise man once said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliesboots

Don't fancy a seven page "discussion" with you Steve so we'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page