CPL 2022 Season Attendance

[Kingston]

45 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I don't know, I keep seeing the "historical" argument being brought up from the CSL/NASL years. I don't dismiss it but CPL is very much so set up far differently.

Let's just start with the owners, Cavalry owners are very rich and own the grounds...this is a significant advantage. (+ expensive tickets 😉). The league seems to have found way to diversify its revenue streams and working on improving on that front. Add the media deal with MediaPro + CanMNT going to the world cup and you seriously can make the case that the league is going to be fine.

If the league was similar to what was done in the old days, COVID would have killed it.

Multiple revenue streams, instead of only tickets, will help.  Not enough to keep the Faths in Edmonton, apparently, but it will help.

I'm not convinced about the World Cup bump.  We haven't seen rivalry bumps if you actually look at the attendance stats.  But it won't hurt.

A rich owner buys you time and paves over rough patches.  Real financial success, however, involves a profit so that you don't fail when the owner gets tired of his toy.

Also, a rich owner in Calgary is great for them.  You still need enough successful teams for a league for them to play in.

Again, I really want the CPL to survive and thrive.  I'm not yet ready to call that accomplished, though.

[Cicero]

5,000 with 15 home dates at an average $40/seat is $3 million. So that seems a reasonable target. But to progress, I'd say you need a player budget of at least $2 million, not the $750k they're working with right now, or $1.25m with technical staff. Other costs would likely be at least another $2m, I'd guess, so 5k probably works as is, but it's a minimum threshold for long term success. For really deep pocketed owners, losing $1-2m a year isn't a big deal if franchise values grow like we've seen with MLS in the last decade. But we're twenty years behind MLS, and there's no guarantee the league will get over the hump.

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, Kingston said:

Multiple revenue streams, instead of only tickets, will help.  Not enough to keep the Faths in Edmonton, apparently, but it will help.

I understand why the league wanted the Faths and FC Edmonton initially but it became clear that the league and ownership weren't on the same page. I'd like to think that the league has learned from this and will want to make sure going forward that everyone will be on the same page.

 

1 hour ago, Kingston said:

I'm not convinced about the World Cup bump.  We haven't seen rivalry bumps if you actually look at the attendance stats.  But it won't hurt.

  Well, it's kind of early - they just qualified. You'll see it with back to back world cup with us serving as co-hosts for one of them.

 

1 hour ago, Kingston said:

A rich owner buys you time and paves over rough patches.  Real financial success, however, involves a profit so that you don't fail when the owner gets tired of his toy.

There aren't many clubs making a profit in MLS. Montreal doesn't (including SUM revenues) neither does Vancouver on the Canadian side. MLSE is structure in a way where TFC losing money doesn't really matter. CPL clubs losing money is expected as the value of their investment appreciate while banking on long term ROI in an untapped market.

I really don't get why some calls it a borderline failure if they aren't a profit after 3 years (2 of them during COVID) - while MLS clubs can just lose significantly more (in the millions) and we aren't talking about it.

 

1 hour ago, Kingston said:

Also, a rich owner in Calgary is great for them.  You still need enough successful teams for a league for them to play in.

I think based on the Valour numbers from the inaugural year, they lost money but it wasn't as significant as people anticipated. (6 figures during the inaugural year). COVID definitely hurt everyone, including everywhere around the world. This further highlight the importance of picking the right owners. Baldassara looks fully committed long term despite brutal attendances while the Fath were looking at the exit door once they got tired of losing money.

This matters and it might be time to come to term that CPL owners have the means of their ambitions nor would the league allow owners who can't handle this long term going forward. 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Ansem

[Cicero]

I also think that only one of the teams really nailed stadium location, and that's the most successful team, attendance-wise. Tim Horton's is not terrible location-wise, and it doesn't seem cavernous with no end stands, so the game-day experience is 'okay', but it still would be better with a better stadium, in a better location. The rest are just too out-of-the-way (Starlight and Spruce Meadows), too big in Winnipeg and Ottawa's case (looks like it on tv anyway), or seem too impermanent and amateur in York's case. I can't comment on Edmonton's issues. It seems like they should have been able to make it work with some relatively inexpensive renovations.

[Ansem]

9 minutes ago, Cicero said:

5,000 with 15 home dates at an average $40/seat is $3 million. So that seems a reasonable target. But to progress, I'd say you need a player budget of at least $2 million, not the $750k they're working with right now, or $1.25m with technical staff. Other costs would likely be at least another $2m, I'd guess, so 5k probably works as is, but it's a minimum threshold for long term success. For really deep pocketed owners, losing $1-2m a year isn't a big deal if franchise values grow like we've seen with MLS in the last decade. But we're twenty years behind MLS, and there's no guarantee the league will get over the hump.

The league needs mainstream attention, without it - they'll never reach its full potential. Is Onesoccer being part of a sport package the answer? It's a good approach, especially with the CanMNT success but they need Bell, Rogers, Videotron and others to do the same as Telus. More mainstream awareness will help attendance.

I think the cap should be flexible to allow clubs who can spend more to go ahead and do it.

You made a reference with MLS, not only is CPL 20 years younger - it has the disadvantage of having to compete with MLS on it's territory. While Chivas USA was a "fail" of epic proportion, there's no doubt that if Liga MX had a 10 years head start with proper clubs in say LA, MLS wouldn't be what it is today. Heck - without Toronto it wouldn't be what it is today. CPL in that regards have a much much much harder challenge for themselves.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

The league needs mainstream attention, without it - they'll never reach its full potential. Is Onesoccer being part of a sport package the answer? It's a good approach, especially with the CanMNT success but they need Bell, Rogers, Videotron and others to do the same as Telus. More mainstream awareness will help attendance.

I think the cap should be flexible to allow clubs who can spend more to go ahead and do it.

You made a reference with MLS, not only is CPL 20 years younger - it has the disadvantage of having to compete with MLS on it's territory. While Chivas USA was a "fail" of epic proportion, there's no doubt that if Liga MX had a 10 years head start with proper clubs in say LA, MLS wouldn't be what it is today. Heck - without Toronto it wouldn't be what it is today. CPL in that regards have a much much much harder challenge for themselves.

They not only have to get on Bell, etc.'s packages, they also have to break through the Bell/Rogers sports entertainment duopoly. That duopoly has funded TFC, and as a fan I haven't complained, but every sport in this country is at their mercy. It certainly doesn't encourage competition.  

[Ansem]

14 minutes ago, Cicero said:

They not only have to get on Bell, etc.'s packages, they also have to break through the Bell/Rogers sports entertainment duopoly. That duopoly has funded TFC, and as a fan I haven't complained, but every sport in this country is at their mercy. It certainly doesn't encourage competition.  

MediaPro acquiring MLS right would be massive - forcing those 2 to work with MediaPro. Might be what it will take to see more of CPL in the mainstream

[TheDoon]

4 hours ago, Cicero said:

I also think that only one of the teams really nailed stadium location, and that's the most successful team, attendance-wise. Tim Horton's is not terrible location-wise, and it doesn't seem cavernous with no end stands, so the game-day experience is 'okay', but it still would be better with a better stadium, in a better location. The rest are just too out-of-the-way (Starlight and Spruce Meadows), too big in Winnipeg and Ottawa's case (looks like it on tv anyway), or seem too impermanent and amateur in York's case. I can't comment on Edmonton's issues. It seems like they should have been able to make it work with some relatively inexpensive renovations.

Edmontons stadium location is quite poor. The adjacent area is very run down with no great commercial properties nearby to encourage the traditional March to the match. 
 

Not to be too negative, I’m not seeing how they dig themselves out. Downtown land is too expensive and many of the large parking lots are being rezoned right now for multi family development, including land owned by the Oilers Entertainment Group.   
 

A small but intimate stadium (closed in seating with a roof) would set any team up for success as it’s something that all fans want. That’s unfortunately a massive investment for what is still a very risky product. 
 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by TheDoon

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

18 hours ago, Kingston said:

...It is not that 5000 is arbitrarily a successful number...

It's the lower end of the range that Paul Beirne used to mention as what they were targetting so there's nothing arbitrary about it. Back in the CSL era 4500 paid was the number mentioned a lot as being necessary to make a fully professional coast-to-coast league with air travel work properly so that sort of ballpark figure has been the goal for a long time.

If you look at how often pro soccer has been attempted in various cities under either CSA or USSF sanctioning and for both conventional 11-a-side or indoor soccer and how seldom it has ever actually worked it soon becomes very sobering but once people start to forget what happened the last time around investors and/or the CSA always seem to want to try the same basic approach again rather than revisiting some of the assumptions being made. Hockey meanwhile has the CHL...

Edited April 12, 2022 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Watchmen]

18 hours ago, Ansem said:

I really don't get why some calls it a borderline failure if they aren't a profit after 3 years (2 of them during COVID) - while MLS clubs can just lose significantly more (in the millions) and we aren't talking about it.

Because 1) Everyone knows some of MLS's losses were false (with owners losing money on MLS but making it up in SUM, and using the MLS losses as a negotiation ploy against the players union) and 2) MLS fans do talk about how the league itself still doesn't make money.

18 hours ago, Ansem said:

This further highlight the importance of picking the right owners. Baldassara looks fully committed long term despite brutal attendances while the Fath were looking at the exit door once they got tired of losing money.

This matters and it might be time to come to term that CPL owners have the means of their ambitions nor would the league allow owners who can't handle this long term going forward. 

The Faths had also been in it longer than any other ownership group. It's easy for an owner to say they're in it for the long term, to understand the losses in year 1, to write off the losses in year 2 or 3 because of covid. But how about year 6? 7? 10? That's the point the Faths were at, who initially (USL/NASL era) were in it for the long term. This isn't me singling out any team in particular, but there's going to be owners who said "yes I'm in for the long term" who then look to get out once the reality sets in.

[ted]

20 hours ago, Kingston said:

Again, I really want the CPL to survive and thrive.  I'm not yet ready to call that accomplished, though.

As a big believer in the CanPL who has (reasonable) confidence it will,"survive and thrive" I will be the first to challenge anyone who is, "ready to call that accomplished".

When the league launched I said I believed the league could reach the 5,000 average attendance mark league-wide by year five. Thanks to COVID however we are, as far as I am concerned, in year TWO of those five. 2020 and 2021 saw the league survive against all odds. The fact that we have seen the start of season four is a testament to the investors and organization.

 

20 hours ago, Ansem said:

I really don't get why some calls it a borderline failure if they aren't a profit after 3 years (2 of them during COVID) - while MLS clubs can just lose significantly more (in the millions) and we aren't talking about it.

Right?!?

The CanPL has survived a pandemic that saw it's year TWO without anyone buying tickets to see games. That may not be a wild success but it is a freaking heroic achievement. Anyone calling a league launching it's fourth season under these conditions, "a borderline failure" has a personal or vested interest in the league's failure. It is no a realistic or even reasonable assessment. It is an assassination attempt.

[gigi riva]

The CPL is still a very young league,  in 4 seasons they have really played 2 complete seasons  thanks to COVID. There is going to be challenges down the road  that they have not seen yet its going to be up to the people in charge  to handle these situations the right way, No disrespect to the current and past commisioner of this league but I wish they had a David Stern kind of person Running the league😃

[Ansem]

4 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Because 1) Everyone knows some of MLS's losses were false (with owners losing money on MLS but making it up in SUM, and using the MLS losses as a negotiation ploy against the players union) and 2) MLS fans do talk about how the league itself still doesn't make money.

Perhaps but not in Saputo's case who's losing money even with SUM revenues

 

 

[wwahl11]

I was unable to get a figure for the Edmonton attendance, so I picked the 50 minute mark in the game broadcast, took a bunch of screen shots and counted the attendees section by section including the end zone bleachers and people wandering around the fenced field (but not counting anyone inside the fences). I came up with 317 attendees. Not absolutely accurate but probably a good ball park.

 

[Stanley]

16 hours ago, wwahl11 said:

I was unable to get a figure for the Edmonton attendance, so I picked the 50 minute mark in the game broadcast, took a bunch of screen shots and counted the attendees section by section including the end zone bleachers and people wandering around the fenced field (but not counting anyone inside the fences). I came up with 317 attendees. Not absolutely accurate but probably a good ball park.

 

You missed the 497 ticket holders people who were in the bathroom at the time.

[narduch]

16 hours ago, wwahl11 said:

I was unable to get a figure for the Edmonton attendance, so I picked the 50 minute mark in the game broadcast, took a bunch of screen shots and counted the attendees section by section including the end zone bleachers and people wandering around the fenced field (but not counting anyone inside the fences). I came up with 317 attendees. Not absolutely accurate but probably a good ball park.

 

What about the people sitting on the camera side of the stadium?

[wwahl11]

1 hour ago, narduch said:

What about the people sitting on the camera side of the stadium?

In Clarke Stadium it looks like the stands are on the east side (counted), bleachers on the north side (counted), nothing on the south side except walkway (counted), and club houses on the west/camera side (not counted). I think the club houses have the changing rooms, offices, etc. and maybe box seats. The camera never panned to the west, so there was no way to count anyone watching there. Someone else may have better information about what is on the west side.

[wwahl11]

1 hour ago, wwahl11 said:

In Clarke Stadium it looks like the stands are on the east side (counted), bleachers on the north side (counted), nothing on the south side except walkway (counted), and club houses on the west/camera side (not counted). I think the club houses have the changing rooms, offices, etc. and maybe box seats. The camera never panned to the west, so there was no way to count anyone watching there. Someone else may have better information about what is on the west side.

Found a virtual venue for Clarke Stadium and there are 3 sections (109, 110, 111 - most expensive) butted up against the club house. I had no view or figures for who was in those sections. Sorry.

Edited April 15, 2022 by wwahl11
spelling

[CDNFootballer]

Just a reminder for this thread, the norm in pro sports is to announce tickets distributed numbers for attendance not butts in the seats.

Edited April 16, 2022 by CDNFootballer

[K Edgar]

[narduch]

Attendance for Forge v Cavalry was 3,688

[gwsmith63]

Ottawa today was around 2200. 
 

 

[grasshopper1917]

1 hour ago, gwsmith63 said:

Ottawa today was around 2200. 
 

 

Surely they had to draw more then that - no?

[gwsmith63]

36 minutes ago, grasshopper1917 said:

Surely they had to draw more then that - no?

One would think but that was the figure given off-camera at the post game interviews when I asked. 
 

Chilly Easter weekend game?  Sure, but still expected above 3K at least.  
 

Not to be. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by gwsmith63

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Maybe the pay what you want promotion still worked better than I thought it did last week then. In the match thread there's a clip of the first goal of the Forge game where you can see almost the entire lower bowl on the side where most of the fans usually are. If anything 3688 looks on the generously announced side from that although it's still early in the game.

Do they have to play a home game on the same day so close to a TFC home game timing? There's probably significant overlap in support between the two clubs even if that's not how Bob Young & Co prefer to frame things. Think York eventually moved away from doing that to make it easier for people who first and foremost love the sport to do both.