they're paying for it. they're asking for some help with utilities and the like. they're talking about covering 80% of this thing, roughly. i belive it's in the city's best interests to help out. i'm not a soccer fanatic. i'm a baseball fanatic. but make no mistake about it...soccer's coming. it's growing. i didn't give a rat's ass about it for years. but my kid is involved in it....and now i love it. i love watching the dyanmo and the US team, in particular. i'd gladly pay to go watch a soccer game. i wouldn't have said that years ago. and i think by the time my son is my age, MLS will be well past the height the NHL reached in the 90's.
Even as a soccer/Dynamo fan, I will say it'll take years to get the fan base that the Rockets have. Look at this web site alone... That said, Major League Soccer has to be considered in the top 5 of sports in America right now. NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, & MLS are it. They have already surpassed the NHL. Growth is happening (expansion in San Jose next year, Seattle in 2009, and probably Philly and/or St. Louis in 09 or 10). Teams are becoming profitable with the stadium deals (FC Dallas for example). It was a little easier to sell the TC with all of it's potential uses. A soccer specific stadium would be difficult at best to pass in a public referendum. With AEG stepping in to pay a large majority of the costs, I think it's fair to ask the city for infrastructure improvements to the area. It's a lot less than the other teams in the city and many businesses ask for.
Give me an f*ing break your shallow view is what holds america back from considering soccer a legit sport. Its the most played sport in the world, the most popular, and draws in the most revenue. The only reason football became so popular is cuz the US blows in soccer. Houston's population is booming with not only hispanics but other cultures which embrace soccer too. The city paid for new stadiums for baseball, football, and basketball, why not make a soccer stadium for a winning, money making team.
$80M... man they can rennovate the astrodome (dynamo dome) to have 30,000 seats, w/ retractable roof, offices, medical facilities, restaurants, bars, shops, hotel rooms... an still have money left over.
Total guess on my part, if someone wants to look up the numbers that could be cool: MLS is closer to the NBA in US revenue, viewership, etc... than the NBA is to the NFL & MLB. The NBA is no longer a "Big 3" sport: NFL, MLB, NASCAR.
We paid for stadiums for the big 3 because they are the money makers. The MLS is not and it's not worth public money to build them a stadium. As the article states, they are going to front most of the costs so I say build it. I always get this response from the soccer fans. I'm not anti soccer, I'm just realistic about the game's importance. If that offends you or pisses you off, so be it.
You might be right, NASCAR makes a rediculous amount of money from sponsorships. I remember some race team got fined $100,000,000 (yeah 100 million) for stealing some plans for a supercar or something. Losing that amount and not going bankrupt means you are making some serious bank.
22,000 seats?? For the nations 4th largest city and a growing soccer fan base, that doesnt seem like a very ambitious effort.
Money makers for who?? The owners. Why do the local governments care about that? Their concern is impact on local economy. We're talking about adding a venue that hosts around 20,000 people about 20 times a year. This encourages more use of land...which equals more tax dollars to the local governments. It encourages more use of hotel rooms...which equals more tax dollars to the local governments. It encourages people to spend money in the immediate vicinity on dining/drinking/etc...which equals more tax dollars to the local governments. The City of Houston isn't concerned with what MLS' total revenues are in comparision to the other sports in making this decision. I don't see how that's relevant at all.
The teams that have their own stadiums are profitable. Dallas and LA are. Once the numbers are released, you can expect to add Chicago, Colorado, & Toronto to that list. The league expects to be fully profitable by 2010. Not bad considering the mountains they needed to climb. Say what you want to make yourself feel better, you are anti-soccer.
As I said in the hangout: You have no freaking clue what you are talking about. It cost 60 million to renovate the dome the first time and that was just riping down a scoreboard and adding stands to the outfield (skyboxes too). That was 20 years ago too. It would have cost more to do today. You want to change the entire infrastructure of the stadium. Something I don't even think is possible from an engineering standpoint. Why don't the Dynamo build a floating stadium that will hover around the city of houston. Maybe tunnel down to the center of the earth and built it there. Just a thought.
It's pretty stupid if the city drags it's feet on this deal. Paying for infrastructure and road improvements in an area that still has a lot of blight like the 59/George R. Brown area is only a good thing. And it's not like they would take the money that would go to this and hire a crapload of firefighters or policemen. I really hate politicians.
22k seats. That's the only problem I see. Since the MLS is growing they need atleast 30k. Maybe they can design a 22k stadium that can expand later.
