Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I feel the need to point out that the current US/Martinique game has pretty shit attendance, and attendance for our game last night was pretty shit as well.   I know these are only group games, but given the arguments that US hosting flows cash to all the CONCACAF countries, I am curious what info will be made available after the tourney re attendance and revenue.  I suspect the bulk of revenue will be generated by a couple of choice group games where regional rivalries are in place (like CR vs Honduras) and the knockout games, especially when the US goes deep.  If that is true, nothing about us hosting our group would detract from that - and in fact could increase the overall revenue over some of sparsely attended group games in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll be interested in the final attendance number...didnt see any final number for last night yet....thought they said FS1 that there were storms in the Tampa area and that may impact who showed up..plus Raymond James Stadium is a large football stadium so 15k there can get swallowed up pretty easy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

That seems high, but I have no real evidence whatsoever...

Maybe some Panama/Nicaragua fans left already by that point. The numbers are always misleading with these double headers. The "average" attendance numbers for the tournament would be cut in half if you talk number of tickets sold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 9:07 AM, Kent said:

Aren't Gold cup games double headers? A ticket gets you into both games, it seems many fans only show up or stay for one game.So there are empty seats for one game that the ticket was sold for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attendance in stadiums is only one side of the picture in terms of profit. Sponserships are perhaps a bigger chunk, and that is where the yanks are superior to all the rest of us in the americas. In addition, televison revenues....many US residents, especially latinos, have this mentality that if it isn't in the US or their exact country of origin, they will not turn on the television. Much of US television is geared toward the stateside latinos, because they are such a big $ force. I suffered in below zero weather at midnight in the middle of Andean foothills to watch the Copa America 2011 and Copa Libertadores matches, just so the moneyed latino hordes in the US would have the convenience of watching the matches on TV in their early summer evenings, because South America has some cache too. Having lived in Korea, Cameroon, Dubai and Oman, I can say you would be surprised about the cache that the US (or Argentina or Brazil) has in terms of whether you will turn the match on. That is totally illogical, but there is a lot of stupidity around the world, not just in the US of A. There may be other financial factors at play that few of us are even vaguely aware of.

Of course, just because it may mean more money in the coffers of CONkaCRAP to have the matches in the US instead of elsewhere does not make it right. With all the crap (corrupt reffing for future fixtures, stupid rules, scheduling, roster nonsense, to name but a few irritants that are repeated, and sometimes initiated, year after bloddy year)) that comes with the Gold Cup, tho, I try not to think too much as I hold my nose for the benefit of seeing Canada's promise on the field. Yes, amongst the crap, there is genuine excitement as a Canada fan to see the likes of Kaye, AD and Piette overachieve.for us.

Go Canada!

 

Edited by beachesl
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nazzer said:

Aren't Gold cup games double headers? A ticket gets you into both games, it seems many fans only show up or stay for one game.So there are empty seats for one game that the ticket was sold for. 

on wikipedia they have been showing two separate attendances for the double header games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, king1010 said:

on wikipedia they have been showing two separate attendances for the double header games. 

They show them separately, but they are pretty suspect in terms of accuracy.

 

Double header example1:

FG vs Canada - Att: 25,817

Hon vs CR - Att: 25,817

Editorial comment: There is no way in hell we had the same level of attendance for our game against FG.  The stands were empty, until people started showing up for the 2nd game - mostly wearing Honduras jerseys.

 

Double header example 2:

US vs Panama - Att: 47, 622

Mart vs Nic - Att: 5,515

Editorial comment: Not sure how they measured the difference in attendance since this was also a double-header (I think), but the numbers for the 2nd game support the idea that many games are duds, even in the US.

 

Throw in the fact that a bunch of games don't have any listed attendance whatsoever, and I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the wiki numbers. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone else has mentioned this along the way in this thread, but Canada should absolutely be looking to host their group stage games if for no other reason than as dress rehearsals ahead of WC2026. We could easily host one tournament splitting Toronto/Montreal and a second splitting Vancouver/Edmonton. 

The infrastructure is in place and Canada's one of the three automatic qualifiers so it doesn't even need to upset the balance of the tournament format. You can protect the sanctity of Mexico playing their group stage games in the US by drawing the third seeded team (ie. Costa Rica, or maybe one day ... Canada!) to the Canada group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CarbonBasedEntity said:

Perhaps someone else has mentioned this along the way in this thread, but Canada should absolutely be looking to host their group stage games if for no other reason than as dress rehearsals ahead of WC2026. We could easily host one tournament splitting Toronto/Montreal and a second splitting Vancouver/Edmonton. 

The infrastructure is in place and Canada's one of the three automatic qualifiers so it doesn't even need to upset the balance of the tournament format. You can protect the sanctity of Mexico playing their group stage games in the US by drawing the third seeded team (ie. Costa Rica, or maybe one day ... Canada!) to the Canada group.

Bingo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CarbonBasedEntity said:

Perhaps someone else has mentioned this along the way in this thread, but Canada should absolutely be looking to host their group stage games if for no other reason than as dress rehearsals ahead of WC2026. We could easily host one tournament splitting Toronto/Montreal and a second splitting Vancouver/Edmonton. 

The infrastructure is in place and Canada's one of the three automatic qualifiers so it doesn't even need to upset the balance of the tournament format. You can protect the sanctity of Mexico playing their group stage games in the US by drawing the third seeded team (ie. Costa Rica, or maybe one day ... Canada!) to the Canada group.

I haven't looked at all host stadiums but aren't all games being played on grass? Which would mean Toronto and Montreal host, but not Vancouver or Edmonton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

I haven't looked at all host stadiums but aren't all games being played on grass? Which would mean Toronto and Montreal host, but not Vancouver or Edmonton.

It's time for Canadian  stadiums to be upgraded, they should put in a grass systems. The technology is fantastic, with hybrid and heated systems. 

BC place - had grass before Commonwealth Stadium- had grass before 

 Montreal Olympic stadium - had grass before

ottawa  Lansdowne Park - had grass before. 

Top players want to play on grass not  carpet. With the CPL coming, the World Cup in 2026,  potential gold cups, maybe someday an  Arctic cup, u17/20 tournaments. It's time. 

Yes hosting Cups/tournaments is expensive but the CSA could make money and boost Soccer popularity in this country. 

 

 

Edited by SpecialK
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialK said:

It's time for Canadian  stadiums to be upgraded, they should put in a grass systems. The technology is fantastic, with hybrid and heated systems. 

BC place - had grass before Commonwealth Stadium- had grass before 

 Montreal Olympic stadium - had grass before

ottawa  Lansdowne Park - had grass before. 

Top players want to play on grass not  carpet. With the CPL coming, the World Cup in 2026,  potential gold cups, maybe someday an  Arctic cup, u17/20 tournaments. It's time. 

Yes hosting Cups/tournaments is expensive but the CSA could make money and boost Soccer popularity in this country. 

 

 

I can't speak for other but there's no way TD Place in Ottawa switches to grass, the perceived maintenance costs would be too much for a company like OSEG who just posted a $14M loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to CBC  they're blaming the Lack of big events being added is one of major causes of the loss. 

Well if you put in a grass system, you can host bigger soccer and rugby events.  Also if you had a grass system it will help  attract star players to come play for ottawa in the new Can PL. If a team in Ottawa doesnt have good players and a winning team, fans won't come to the games. 

Ottawa have had great  attendance levels for national women's soccer games. Ottawa should host more games. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OSEG has deep pockets ! 

OSEG owners, which includes: Jeff Hunt, owner of the Ottawa 67's; developer Minto Group's chairman, Roger Greenberg; expatriate property developer billionaire Bill Shenkman; and John Ruddy, president of shopping centre developer, Trinity Development Group

also the city Ottawa put a lot of money into Landsdowne.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because owners have lots of money doesn't mean they necessarily want to spend lots of money.  They didn't get rich by throwing away money.  Not saying the suggestions here would be that case but I'm sure they've looked into the costs when deciding which way to go with their stadiums.  Unfortunately what's best for the soccer fan isn't always what's best on the business end.  Real world 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand that, but a high standard needs to maintain and in Canada we the fans or sports governing bodies don't hold them. 

Womens World Cup, CSA had a  opportunity to put in place high standards and they didn't.

 Toronto FC versus Montreal impact in the playoffs at the Olympic Stadium. The  turf was garbage and they couldnt even paint the lines right. But when AC Milan came , they installed a grass field. To me that's Bullshit and slap in the face. Also overall the governments in Quebec have been so  incompetent in dealing with the Olympic Stadium it's a Joke and it's not even funny it's just sad. 

CFL owners, lobby governments to  practically build their stadiums but they put in cheap and crap fields, that only suit the CFL. When you look at stadiums in Europe, they hold huge events , Soccer games, rugby games and huge  Athletic/track and field events. 

Those fields HURT the growth of soccer and rugby and track and field in this Country and We the tax payers pay for them? Why can't we demand for better?

more sports + more events in Stadiums + jobs added = more money to be made.

Edited by SpecialK
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a crazy question. Would the Gold Cup be better or worse off if they did away with the double headers? I know that Jamaica vs Curacao (for example) isn't going to draw many fans on it's own, but attending back to back soccer games is a big time commitment, and from what I've seen in this tournament, most fans only really watch one game, with some maybe catching the last 20 or 30 minutes of a game that happens before the one they are interested in. If the stadium is going to be virtually empty anyways, then does it really hurt to get the fans to pay for a separate ticket? It might even result in more fans coming out. Like say one game of a double header is a big enough draw that it sells out. There could be some fans that aren't able to buy tickets to see a low profile game they are interested in, because the game it is paired with is sold out.

My first inclination was wondering about them selling cheap 1 game tickets, and more expensive 2 game tickets, but I figured almost nobody would get the 2 game tickets, and then you would have the headache of getting people out of the stadium, and probably having a system of wristbands to indicate what ticket you came in with. So then I thought it might not be absolutely crazy to just not have double headers. Maybe the Canada vs French Guiana game would have had more than 200 people in the seats if the game was at 8 o'clock in Philadelphia instead of 7 o'clock in New York and having to compete with the Honduras fans buying up tickets for their late game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kent said:

I have a crazy question. Would the Gold Cup be better or worse off if they did away with the double headers? I know that Jamaica vs Curacao (for example) isn't going to draw many fans on it's own, but attending back to back soccer games is a big time commitment, and from what I've seen in this tournament, most fans only really watch one game, with some maybe catching the last 20 or 30 minutes of a game that happens before the one they are interested in. If the stadium is going to be virtually empty anyways, then does it really hurt to get the fans to pay for a separate ticket? It might even result in more fans coming out. Like say one game of a double header is a big enough draw that it sells out. There could be some fans that aren't able to buy tickets to see a low profile game they are interested in, because the game it is paired with is sold out.

My first inclination was wondering about them selling cheap 1 game tickets, and more expensive 2 game tickets, but I figured almost nobody would get the 2 game tickets, and then you would have the headache of getting people out of the stadium, and probably having a system of wristbands to indicate what ticket you came in with. So then I thought it might not be absolutely crazy to just not have double headers. Maybe the Canada vs French Guiana game would have had more than 200 people in the seats if the game was at 8 o'clock in Philadelphia instead of 7 o'clock in New York and having to compete with the Honduras fans buying up tickets for their late game.

I think the double headers make it seem rather hokey. But a game between Curaçao and Jamaica in northern USA won't draw a crowd so doesn't it make it easier to do double headers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...