PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Article comparing TFC and Seattle Sounders



VPjr
08-05-2009, 02:44 PM
http://www.mls-rumors.net/2009/08/report-red-vs-rave-green-tale-of-two.html

DangerRed
08-05-2009, 03:04 PM
A very interesting article indeed. Can you imagine if SSHs got to vote on whether Mo stays or goes? Wild.

EDIT: best part is in the comments, actually, and it's this one, referring to the fanbase: "MLS should have "Once they walk, they're hard to get back." as a motto above EVERY GM's door."

TRUE DAT.

The Kingpin
08-05-2009, 03:08 PM
Toronto FC will always be the top club. Seattle has it lucky since they are a former USL team... In 5-7 Years we'll be right with them, we just need the infrastructure!! We have top flight owners who know how to make serious profit - this will benefit us when the cap is raised!!!

Darlofletch
08-05-2009, 03:40 PM
Very interesting.

It simplifies and exagerrates things in Seattle's favour a bit, but I agree with it's basic point, Seattle seems very well run, and actually committed to being competitive from the start. TFC is very much a MLSE franchise.

MartinUtd
08-05-2009, 03:46 PM
I have a feeling the cap will only raise as inflation does.

dupont
08-05-2009, 03:53 PM
Now that the Seattle ownership sees how popular it is, it should be interesting to see if they keep giving out so many freebies and things over the next 5 years. They might have only done that because they weren't sure how popular it was going to be. If they see that they don't need to give away free stuff then maybe they will stop.

TFC Tifoso
08-05-2009, 04:19 PM
great article....spot on!

Beach_Red
08-05-2009, 04:29 PM
TFC is very much a MLSE franchise.

So true.

Since I moved to Toronto I've wondered why no one else wants to own a sports team here? And really, Rogers is no better.

It's too bad that Blackberry guy is so hung up on hockey, he seems like he'd make a decent owner.

Dirk Diggler
08-05-2009, 05:07 PM
Yeah ... it is quite a pity that MLSE has the professional sports scene on a lockdown here. Rogers has very little history and after the death of Ted Rogers, very little interest it seems.

carefree_cfc
08-05-2009, 05:10 PM
the supporters are taken for granted here. I love tfc and they're my home team but seattle runs a better business than we do and will be better off in the long term because of it, simple as that.

Gazza_55
08-05-2009, 05:48 PM
Now that the Seattle ownership sees how popular it is, it should be interesting to see if they keep giving out so many freebies and things over the next 5 years. They might have only done that because they weren't sure how popular it was going to be. If they see that they don't need to give away free stuff then maybe they will stop.

Actually I think now that they see how popular it is they are pushing to be even bigger. Once every ticket was sold in their 27,000 seat configuration they held job fairs to hire a few hundred more staff at Qwest so they could open up more seats. Now the capacity is 32,000. They made $3.8m on the Chelsea match even though 24,000 seats were given away free. They have contacted Desso about their Grassmaster system. Some of the Council Members have gone to Drew & Adrian an offered to poll the STH's to find some ways to fund the switch from Turf to Grass. A $3 ticket and merchandise tax would probably do it but the Seahawks might have a say.

Like the article states I think Seattle is looking more at the long term. They are businessmen but I think they realize if they treat the fans right and give them a quality product in 20 years they may be able to fill Qwest 63,000 for every home match.

Detroit_TFC
08-05-2009, 06:49 PM
Slightly off topic

Seems like NFL's experience with Grassmaster has been mixed. See link for somewhat old ESPN article from 2008 on this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/columns/story?id=3179831

mclaren
08-05-2009, 07:37 PM
Toronto FC will always be the top club. Seattle has it lucky since they are a former USL team... In 5-7 Years we'll be right with them, we just need the infrastructure!! We have top flight owners who know how to make serious profit - this will benefit us when the cap is raised!!!

haha love the newfound positivity. i need to have some of what you're smoking.

jabbronies
08-05-2009, 08:15 PM
Its interesting how Seattle has come to be.

Off the field:
The Seattle supporters have always been there. They have years of experience working as a group and doing thier thing.
We on the other hand have only had 3 years to get our shit together and figure out what our thing is (aside from U-sector). I think in our short existance we've done a very respectable job in establishing our supporters strength.

Chants
Thier battle chant - Seattle...Sounders
Our Battle chant - The Massive.
Not only is our chant alot hard to do, it's even harder when the sound of the supporters can barley travelling 20 feet due to the lack of acoustics at BMO field. This, IMO, has been THE single biggest problem we supporters have had since day 1 in getting the atmosphere to the next level at BMO. No one can hear us. Upper 110 can barely hear 112 and we're only two sections over. Alot easier for Seattle though, they have a stadium with great acoustics.

On the field product:
I see this as a two parter: Our current team, Our future team.

We have a great future. Frei, Cronin, Wynne, Nana, Gomez, Sanyang, Ibrahim, to some degree, Barrett and we have a proper youth academy in place. If managed right, we could be like New England and just have a consistant flow of new, quality players coming through our system or in the draft.

Our current team is great on paper. Including the young guys on U-x teams, we have 14 players who are either on a national team or have played on a national team. We should be good. These are not shitty players. They just can't play together. For whatever reason, and I'm sure everyone has thier reasons why, they just can't.
So who's to blame?
Mo? for going out and getting international quality players and not hiring a coach that can handle them?
Chris Cummins? for being thrown into the fire when Carver left and not kowing how to work with these guys?
MLSE? for only caring about the money?
Tough to say.

The thing that Seattle has going for them on the field is Sigi Schmid. The MLS cups follows this guy. This is an MLS veteran coach (one of the most sucessfull) who had his hand in making this team and coaching it the way it needed to be coached.
Seattle also got lucky with Ljundberg IMO. Here's a guy who's all about the limelight. You thought Beckham was a slave to his wifey's obbsession with being with the stars, FJ is a media whore himself. You think it was the soccer that brought him to Seattle and not the Big hollywood owners who owned the team? or the fact that by coming to America and being a huge football star once again, which he is, that his sponsorship deals wound't be rekindled in the ol' US of A?

The problem with TFC getting these big named stars is that we are Toronto Canada. Home of igloos and freezing cold winters. oh, and we have a 3 month summer. Big named DP's are coming to the MLS for fame and Toronto isn't as high on the list as NY or LA. Mo tried to get JDG, but that fell through. Huckerby went to San Jose cos he likes the warm weather. McBride, thank god, didn't want to be here at all. I don't think Mo or MLSE arn't trying. They just arn;t as lucky

Anyways. That's just my take on the whole situation.

The Kingpin
08-06-2009, 01:28 AM
haha love the newfound positivity. i need to have some of what you're smoking.

Yea, well I guess it's a better outlook!! Being uber positive is the way to go, it's better for the soul. I can't let me feeling and opinions mire other peoples lives, I'm just another supporter of TFC, that is all. I'm loud and proud and will support the team at all costs.

I like Seattle, I think it's a good model for the MLS. I'm hoping one day to see the Mighty TFC play in Seattle, I've never been to the Emerald city!!

Ossington Mental Youth
08-06-2009, 01:55 AM
A very interesting article indeed. Can you imagine if SSHs got to vote on whether Mo stays or goes? Wild..

we'd be fucked, we'd have a new GM every season

olegunnar
08-06-2009, 06:45 AM
haha love the newfound positivity. i need to have some of what you're smoking.

He's smartened up and started accepting his daily soma rations

Oldtimer
08-06-2009, 07:12 AM
we'd be fucked, we'd have a new GM every season

Absolutely right. Letting Toronto fans (of any sport) have that power would be total insanity.

canadian_bhoy
08-06-2009, 07:31 AM
The article reads as if it was written by a bitter TFC supporter (which is entirely possible). If in fact, it was written by an outsider, they spend too much time on the SG message boreds (<-- Heh).

There is no doubt that Seattle has a very strong advantage over TFC in that their ownership group are sports fans who on the surface, seem to have the main goal of a successful team on the field. Despite what people think, TFC is also desparate for success on the field and I know that all of the FO have become legitimate supporters of the team in the last 3 years - however, the mandate of MLSE always means that on field success is priority #2 and that is a recipe for disaster.

The biggest issue with TFC is that we view it as a club and a team, MLSE views it as a company and a product. Until that changes, it will always be difficult to compare a Toronto team to any of the American counterparts - especially those run by NFL billionaires who love sports.

One thing I will say about this article that irked me is the perceived openness of Seattle vs. Toronto.

Toronto FC, their FO and management have been very fan friendly and transparent. It doesn't take a full protest to get the club to sit at the table with the supporters - it takes a phone call and a request. The club brought Cummins and Brennan to a supporters meeting. Paul, Cesar and the other management team have always been willing to talk and listen to supporters. Even Tom Anselmi is willing to reach out and have a frank and open discussion.

The club comes to the table with a very different perspective than the fans do (see winning Priority #2), but you cannot criticise the effort of the club to reach out to its supporters....I just wish they would listen to us more (like they used to).

maninb
08-06-2009, 08:05 AM
GREAT article.....MLSE is all about MAKING MONEY...witness the disgusting $15 per head money grab for the Real practise, after they priced STHs and families out of the Real match with ridiculous prices (meanwhile pocketing approx $3.5 million)...sure they're happy if TFC wins, but the re-signing of Mo for another 2 years after accomplishing NOTHING is just another sign that they are happy the way things are...loads of cash, full stadium and another year out of the playoffs...

Steve
08-06-2009, 08:07 AM
Actually I think now that they see how popular it is they are pushing to be even bigger. Once every ticket was sold in their 27,000 seat configuration they held job fairs to hire a few hundred more staff at Qwest so they could open up more seats. Now the capacity is 32,000. They made $3.8m on the Chelsea match even though 24,000 seats were given away free. They have contacted Desso about their Grassmaster system. Some of the Council Members have gone to Drew & Adrian an offered to poll the STH's to find some ways to fund the switch from Turf to Grass. A $3 ticket and merchandise tax would probably do it but the Seahawks might have a say.

Like the article states I think Seattle is looking more at the long term. They are businessmen but I think they realize if they treat the fans right and give them a quality product in 20 years they may be able to fill Qwest 63,000 for every home match.

I agree with you, but that doesn't make Seattle somehow more "soccer purists". They just have a different circumstance. TFC is in a building with a capacity of 20k people. They have to maximize revenue (just as Seattle does). They can either increase the prices of those 20k seats (bringing supply more in line with demand) or they can add to those 20k seats. Of course they are looking at adding to them, but they know the Toronto sports scene as well as anyone. Obviously they are going to be weary of funding an expansion that will take a significant amount of time to pay off, since they know the Toronto sports fan can be fickle. If they have sufficient reason to believe an investment in expansion would pay off, they will do it.

Seattle on the other hand is also worrying about maximizing revenue, but they have a different route to take. They are worrying about artificially limiting demand to ensure they can use the word "sell out", but keeping that number as close to real demand as possible without going over. Since they play in a huge stadium, their only concerns regarding capital investment involve staffing up and training, which pays off in a very short amount of time, so it's essentially negligable. So, if they think there can be a sustained (for at least this season and next) interest in 32,000 seats, they expand to that number. After this season, they let more people buy season's tickets, and start again with ramping up until they hit (if they do) the max of the stadium. Then they will play the "ticket price increase game" until they get close to demand.

It's really quite simple, the only difference is we're in very different stadium situations, so our FO looks more "greedy". Both are trying to maximise revenue, one just has more options.

And I don't like how negative the article was on our FO. I've personally not had any contact with them (aside from the occasional PM to Paul, who didn't answer my last one about cameras, jerk) but I've been led to believe they've been quite open to the supporters groups. Essentially, I see Toronto as raising the bar and ushering in a new era for MLS, Seattle has taken the Toronto model, adapted it, and improved on it. Exactly what you would expect a new franchise to do. I expect the next expansions to do the same.

rocker
08-06-2009, 09:10 AM
Call me after Seattle has played 3 seasons so we can do a fair comparison with the first three seasons of TFC.

If this article was "TFC first three seasons versus Real Salt Lake's first three seasons" it would be glowing. ;)

Jack
08-06-2009, 09:25 AM
I'd like to see some proof of this $3.5 million profit.

I could see that as the gross for the game, but profit? Seems like a stretch to me.

Anyway, one of the problems with Toronto sports fans is we are consummate whiners who are constantly comparing ourselves to everyone else. Canadians in general are so concerned with things being "fair". Some people have it better than us, some have it worse. That's life.

ensco
08-06-2009, 09:30 AM
Our NBA team had 33 more wins than their team got last year.

CretanBull
08-06-2009, 09:57 AM
I'd like to see some proof of this $3.5 million profit.


Kristian Jack has said that the total profit after all costs will be $3 million. He's pretty well connected so his sources are probably pretty good. I don't think that it's a difficult number to believe. Between ticket sales (for the game and open practice), luxury box sales, advertising/sponsorships, estimated concessions, selling commercial time during the TV broadcast etc. The cost of putting the game on is somewhere around $1.75 million, so they'd have to generate $4.75 million in various revenue to hit that $3 million profit level...I don't think that's out of reach.

Jay P
08-06-2009, 10:11 AM
seattle has an anti sounders supporter group

TFC has the Kingpin

tfc > sounders.

Gazza_55
08-06-2009, 01:09 PM
I agree with you, but that doesn't make Seattle somehow more "soccer purists". They just have a different circumstance. TFC is in a building with a capacity of 20k people. They have to maximize revenue (just as Seattle does). They can either increase the prices of those 20k seats (bringing supply more in line with demand) or they can add to those 20k seats. Of course they are looking at adding to them, but they know the Toronto sports scene as well as anyone. Obviously they are going to be weary of funding an expansion that will take a significant amount of time to pay off, since they know the Toronto sports fan can be fickle. If they have sufficient reason to believe an investment in expansion would pay off, they will do it.

Seattle on the other hand is also worrying about maximizing revenue, but they have a different route to take. They are worrying about artificially limiting demand to ensure they can use the word "sell out", but keeping that number as close to real demand as possible without going over. Since they play in a huge stadium, their only concerns regarding capital investment involve staffing up and training, which pays off in a very short amount of time, so it's essentially negligable. So, if they think there can be a sustained (for at least this season and next) interest in 32,000 seats, they expand to that number. After this season, they let more people buy season's tickets, and start again with ramping up until they hit (if they do) the max of the stadium. Then they will play the "ticket price increase game" until they get close to demand.

It's really quite simple, the only difference is we're in very different stadium situations, so our FO looks more "greedy". Both are trying to maximise revenue, one just has more options.

And I don't like how negative the article was on our FO. I've personally not had any contact with them (aside from the occasional PM to Paul, who didn't answer my last one about cameras, jerk) but I've been led to believe they've been quite open to the supporters groups. Essentially, I see Toronto as raising the bar and ushering in a new era for MLS, Seattle has taken the Toronto model, adapted it, and improved on it. Exactly what you would expect a new franchise to do. I expect the next expansions to do the same.

Yes both are trying to maximize revenues however Seattle wants to win first and foremost then they'll see how much revenue winning generates. That's why they hired a GM (Hanauer), a Technical Director (Henderson), a proven coach (Sigi Schmid) in their first year. TFC wants to maximize revenue and if we win well hey that's great. TFC hired Mo Johnston to do everything football-wise in the first year and his resume was spotty at best.

Gazza_55
08-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Our NBA team had 33 more wins than their team got last year.

:hump:

TFC07
08-06-2009, 01:20 PM
Our NBA team had 33 more wins than their team got last year.

/thread

grizzle
08-06-2009, 01:21 PM
The article is bang on. The MLSE model is great and will work short term, but if they want to stick around for a long time they better start working closer with the supporters and stop going for the fast buck.

BallardSounder
08-07-2009, 12:44 AM
It's really quite simple, the only difference is we're in very different stadium situations, so our FO looks more "greedy". Both are trying to maximise revenue, one just has more options.

I refuse to read MLS Rumors, so can't directly comment on the article, but the above post (and several others) contain a whole lot of truth, in particular the above quoted paragraph.

The stadium situation is HUGE for the Sounders. We probably wouldn't even have a team without have had Qwest to move into.

Although, Drew Carey is a great minority owner. He picked up the bar tab (and it was a BIG one) for the ECS prior to the Barca friendly.

Shakes McQueen
08-07-2009, 01:23 AM
Yes both are trying to maximize revenues however Seattle wants to win first and foremost then they'll see how much revenue winning generates. That's why they hired a GM (Hanauer), a Technical Director (Henderson), a proven coach (Sigi Schmid) in their first year. TFC wants to maximize revenue and if we win well hey that's great. TFC hired Mo Johnston to do everything football-wise in the first year and his resume was spotty at best.

As has been mentioned before - Seattle had fortunate circumstances with Schmid. He wanted to go to Seattle. Seattle have actually been fortunate in many ways.

- Having a huge pre-existing stadium
- Having a USL team from which to draw experienced players with chemistry (seven players, to be exact)
- A phenomenal keeper who wanted to come back to Seattle specifically
- They lucked out on being in line for Montero
- Landing Ljungberg

Suppose some of the above things hadn't come together - I wonder what we would be saying about them then?

Seattle are a great franchise, and their ownership clearly makes more effort to connect with the fans and supporters on a grassroots level, than ours does. That is pretty much indisputable.

But I really think we hate on our ownership WAY too much. Like canadian_bhoy said - despite our ownership being a "heartless corporation", it hasn't taken much to get a face to face meeting with them about our issues. They've made earnest attempts to sign a quality DP, who isn't completely over the hill. They've made attempts to get the SG's and stadium security on the same page. They've been reasonably transparent.

They may not do as much of the feel good stuff that Seattle's ownership group does, but they certainly do alright for being a corporation. How often do you think Peddie meets with Leafs fans, over their concerns?

We have to keep the pressure on, to make sure things like real grass get done. But this inferiority complex some people have in constantly comparing us to glorious Seattle, has to stop.

- Scott