<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Boise Road Trip, Anyone?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html</link>
	<description>News from Portland Timbers USL team</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:26:12 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob Kellett</title>
		<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-720</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Kellett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 22:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-720</guid>
		<description>Valid points, KT.  The question for someone like Merritt Paulson is whether it is worth it to pony up $40 million for an expansion team to join a league where by most estimates the majority of franchises are losing money (low attendance can do that, ya know) or to remain content with his current situation with the USL-1 Timbers, which are turning a small profit.  Will the boost in attendance be enough to outweigh the initial costs and the increased operating costs that come with owning an MLS team?  I don&#039;t see how that pencils out, but I am not an accountant or in a position to drop millions on anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Valid points, KT.  The question for someone like Merritt Paulson is whether it is worth it to pony up $40 million for an expansion team to join a league where by most estimates the majority of franchises are losing money (low attendance can do that, ya know) or to remain content with his current situation with the USL-1 Timbers, which are turning a small profit.  Will the boost in attendance be enough to outweigh the initial costs and the increased operating costs that come with owning an MLS team?  I don&#8217;t see how that pencils out, but I am not an accountant or in a position to drop millions on anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KT</title>
		<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-717</link>
		<dc:creator>KT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 19:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-717</guid>
		<description>Which ones, exactly, have you wondering why cities are battling it out to join the league?

First off, &quot;cities&quot; aren&#039;t, technically speaking. Ownership groups are. (Some) municipalities have been convinced to pony up money for stadiums and infrastructure because they see it as a good deal economically (the fact is that stadiums aren&#039;t nearly the economic engines they&#039;re made out to be, lying somewhere between manna and boondoggle). 

So, beside the fact that, as you mention, it&#039;s early, you have to go slightly deeper than the numbers themselves for the context:

New York (13,494)...Red Bull hasn&#039;t a clue how to market and present their team, but, seriously, that&#039;s not much different from its past ownership groups. It&#039;s a tough sell. Their new stadium is coming online next year (fingers crossed), and while they&#039;re probably not going to sustain the initial 20,000 crowds longterm, they&#039;ll be in far better economic shape because they&#039;ll be keeping revenue as opposed to giving it to the New Jersey Sports &amp; Exposition Authority.

San Jose (13,290)...helped by a 20,000+ crowd in Oakland for the return engagement of the franchise, hindered by a 10,000-seat temporary stadium. They&#039;re getting closer to their own yard, which will help them financially.

Chivas USA (12,882)...they just don&#039;t know what they&#039;re doing. 

Columbus (11,574)...wouldn&#039;t worry about their finances. They&#039;re better off at 11,500 a game than New York is at 14,000.

New England (10,822)...couldn&#039;t care less, I don&#039;t think. Folks who own the team control the stadium and are not that concerned, financially.

Kansas City (9,210)...in temporary digs. Ownership took enough of a leap of faith to buy the team in the first place, everything they&#039;ve done since then points toward them being committed long term. 

Attendance numbers provide a &lt;i&gt;snapshot&lt;/i&gt; of a team&#039;s general financial health. The context of those snapshots has changed dramatically since 1998 (when 10 of the 12 teams played in way-too-big-and-expensive football stadiums). The numbers don&#039;t have to be at the same level they were then for teams to be doing better financially.

And THAT&#039;S why people (not cities) are competing for MLS teams now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which ones, exactly, have you wondering why cities are battling it out to join the league?</p>
<p>First off, &#8220;cities&#8221; aren&#8217;t, technically speaking. Ownership groups are. (Some) municipalities have been convinced to pony up money for stadiums and infrastructure because they see it as a good deal economically (the fact is that stadiums aren&#8217;t nearly the economic engines they&#8217;re made out to be, lying somewhere between manna and boondoggle). </p>
<p>So, beside the fact that, as you mention, it&#8217;s early, you have to go slightly deeper than the numbers themselves for the context:</p>
<p>New York (13,494)&#8230;Red Bull hasn&#8217;t a clue how to market and present their team, but, seriously, that&#8217;s not much different from its past ownership groups. It&#8217;s a tough sell. Their new stadium is coming online next year (fingers crossed), and while they&#8217;re probably not going to sustain the initial 20,000 crowds longterm, they&#8217;ll be in far better economic shape because they&#8217;ll be keeping revenue as opposed to giving it to the New Jersey Sports &amp; Exposition Authority.</p>
<p>San Jose (13,290)&#8230;helped by a 20,000+ crowd in Oakland for the return engagement of the franchise, hindered by a 10,000-seat temporary stadium. They&#8217;re getting closer to their own yard, which will help them financially.</p>
<p>Chivas USA (12,882)&#8230;they just don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;re doing. </p>
<p>Columbus (11,574)&#8230;wouldn&#8217;t worry about their finances. They&#8217;re better off at 11,500 a game than New York is at 14,000.</p>
<p>New England (10,822)&#8230;couldn&#8217;t care less, I don&#8217;t think. Folks who own the team control the stadium and are not that concerned, financially.</p>
<p>Kansas City (9,210)&#8230;in temporary digs. Ownership took enough of a leap of faith to buy the team in the first place, everything they&#8217;ve done since then points toward them being committed long term. </p>
<p>Attendance numbers provide a <i>snapshot</i> of a team&#8217;s general financial health. The context of those snapshots has changed dramatically since 1998 (when 10 of the 12 teams played in way-too-big-and-expensive football stadiums). The numbers don&#8217;t have to be at the same level they were then for teams to be doing better financially.</p>
<p>And THAT&#8217;S why people (not cities) are competing for MLS teams now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PDXPompey</title>
		<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-694</link>
		<dc:creator>PDXPompey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 23:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-694</guid>
		<description>Tickets are $20 adv. &amp; $25 gate...wow!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tickets are $20 adv. &amp; $25 gate&#8230;wow!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-693</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 19:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-693</guid>
		<description>I just want to see the boys play on that classy pitch!  Mullets and BMXers unite!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just want to see the boys play on that classy pitch!  Mullets and BMXers unite!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-692</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 19:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-692</guid>
		<description>500 people crashing on Pounder&#039;s couch and eating every last crumb in his cupboard.  Sounds like good times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>500 people crashing on Pounder&#8217;s couch and eating every last crumb in his cupboard.  Sounds like good times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: harmsway01</title>
		<link>http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-691</link>
		<dc:creator>harmsway01</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 18:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timbers.theoffside.com/team-news/boise-road-trip-anyone.html#comment-691</guid>
		<description>not really sure what to think of that.  playing at a racetrack in Boise on 4th of July weekend?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>not really sure what to think of that.  playing at a racetrack in Boise on 4th of July weekend?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
