Attendance in other cities

serfboy · Post edited by The_Real_Deal at 2011-04-03 11:14:23

Great match today.

On to another topic. I love watching the match highlight reels on the MLS website. One thing I noticed is the lack of fan attendance in cities like Columbus, Dallas, etc. Even the NY Red Bulls didn't look like a sell out.

Are there any concerns about the viability of several team in the league at this time?

Edit:- Moved to MLS

PrairieboyAlex

watched the Earthquakes vs. Sounders game on KING and the stadium in San Jose looked packed (there was a large group of Sounders fans there) but besides that, good crowd

Krammerhead · Post edited by Krammerhead at 2011-04-03 08:16:19

San Jose plays in a stadium that has an official capacity of 10,300. It would be a shame if it wasn't sold out each night. Last night in New England they had a crowd of just 7,000 for their game against Portland.

SAFC_Yank

The full week 3 breakdown (slightly rounded):

Los Angeles: 25,000
Vancouver: 21,500
Toronto: 18,500 (I believe, without checking, the lowest ever for a league match)
Columbus: 14,500
New York: 13,600
San Jose: 10,250 (According to Arlo White, 250 Seattle fans).
New England: 7,100

Mid-teen crowds this time of year are okay in a lot of markets. New England really is the attendance dragger now that Dallas and KC appear ready to take jumps.

Blue_and_White_Army · Post edited by Blue_and_White_Army at 2011-04-03 09:29:49

New York were naive to think they could get 30,000 out to Jersey, despite the great stadium and big-name players. 20,000 expandable would have been much better. Other than Seattle, I don't think Americans appreciate the concept of creating demand.

As much as we like to take the piss out of Toronto, it's worrying that they've come from (tens of?) thousands of people on a season-ticket waiting list to thousands of empty seats. Not good for Canadian club football. However, I'm sure the bandwagon will be heaving again once Toronto builds a winning team (hah!).

Chris

Blue_and_White_Army said:
As much as we like to take the piss out of Toronto, it's worrying that they've come from (tens of?) thousands of people on a season-ticket waiting list to thousands of empty seats. Not good for Canadian club football. However, I'm sure the bandwagon will be heaving again once Toronto builds a winning team (hah!).

I don't know that I can blame anyone in Toronto for bailing. They pumped an awful lot of passion and money into that club, and got nothing in return for 4 (soon to be 5) years. Don't know that I'd stick around if the Caps showed that kind of indifference to their on-field product.

berto1089

SAFC_Yank said:
The full week 3 breakdown (slightly rounded):

Los Angeles: 25,000
Vancouver: 21,500
Toronto: 18,500 (I believe, without checking, the lowest ever for a league match)
Columbus: 14,500
New York: 13,600
San Jose: 10,250 (According to Arlo White, 250 Seattle fans).
New England: 7,100

Mid-teen crowds this time of year are okay in a lot of markets. New England really is the attendance dragger now that Dallas and KC appear ready to take jumps.

7,100 at the Rev game is quite shocking.

Chris

They'll come around once their soccer specific stadium gets green lit.

Blue_and_White_Army · Post edited by Blue_and_White_Army at 2011-04-03 10:29:40

Two major problems at New England Revs:

1.) Wrong kind of venue: They play in a 68,000-capacity NFL stadium. Not intimate at all.

2.) Crap location: The stadium is way out in Foxborough. That is very far from Boston - almost an hour's drive. Foxoborough is actually close to the state of Rhode Island than to Boston.

3.) Crap transportation: Public transit outside of Boston's downtown core is horrendously bad.

Seattle have a stadium near the downtown core, and it's heaving with people on matchday. Contrast that to MLS clubs with stadia way the hell out of the downtown core (New England, Columbus, and even New York's new venue), and they draw flies. It all comes down to bad city planning, which the Americans are world renowned for. Everyone is expected to get into their SUV and drive for miles. Meanwhile, there is NOTHING to do near the stadium. No central entertainment district, no pubs, no concerts - nothing.

One of the reasons Cascadia will be the envy of MLS is that our clubs will all be playing in downtown stadia.

barca99

Blue_and_White_Army said:
New York were naive to think they could get 30,000 out to Jersey, despite the great stadium and big-name players. 20,000 expandable would have been much better. Other than Seattle, I don't think Americans appreciate the concept of creating demand.

As much as we like to take the piss out of Toronto, it's worrying that they've come from (tens of?) thousands of people on a season-ticket waiting list to thousands of empty seats. Not good for Canadian club football. However, I'm sure the bandwagon will be heaving again once Toronto builds a winning team (hah!).

I really thought that NYRB would sell out their games. Shit, how many millions of people are in that area? 30? I didn't think getting 30,000 in an amazing facility, with some big name stars would be too hard to do. But then again, this is why the MLS badly wants a NYRB-LAG final.

Blue_and_White_Army

Chris said:
They'll come around once their soccer specific stadium gets green lit.

Somerville is much closer to Boston than Foxborough, and the stadium may be near a stop on the subway's green line. However, it's still on the outskirts of Boston, and it sounds like the site has been chosen because it's near a highway (kind of like Empire, really).

It would be nice if it was in an entertainment district; but if it's not, it should be at least within walking distance of the subway or a train. I think it would be smart to build a stadium with a 15,000-18,000 capacity that is expandable, rather than build for 25-30K and have empty seats on opening day.

Blue_and_White_Army

barca99 said:

Blue_and_White_Army said:
I really thought that NYRB would sell out their games. Shit, how many millions of people are in that area? 30? I didn't think getting 30,000 in an amazing facility, with some big name stars would be too hard to do. But then again, this is why the MLS badly wants a NYRB-LAG final.

They should have built in New York City. I know land is expensive, and planning permission is incredibly difficult to get, but if they have the money to sign the likes of Henry, surely they could have found a site in Brooklyn or wherever. Admittedly I've heard the trains out to the stadium in Jersey are pretty good, but there's F-all to do in that area after the match. Everyone gets back on a train and they all go in their separate directions. The post-match buzz gets segmented and dies off very quickly that way.

Lord_Bob

Chris said:
I don't know that I can blame anyone in Toronto for bailing. They pumped an awful lot of passion and money into that club, and got nothing in return for 4 (soon to be 5) years. Don't know that I'd stick around if the Caps showed that kind of indifference to their on-field product.

MLSE has never really been different to TFC's on-field success, though. They've spent money bringing in big names to run the team, they've spent money on players and designated players, they've spent money firing guys and replacing them. They've tried. The problem is that the guy they hired to run soccer operations had no idea what he was doing and it took them a while to realize that. So far, I doubt that they got his replacement right, either: he seems to think Toronto is a city in the Netherlands and is running his team accordingly.

slamo

^^I agree. My initial reaction was great, they've finally hired someone with a plan. But, the "total football" is terrible for casual fans and many NA fans come from an attacking mentality as well. This whole let's pass the ball around and play it back to the keeper and consider 65% possession a victory is exactly what NA media types make fun of. It'd be like me selling season tickets to watch me and my sons practise at the school yard. Yesterdays Caps game had 30+ shoots at goal. A TFC sth might not see that many this year! Winter won't last and that will be a huge blow to the organization. Especially since we know Montreal will bring in the same mentality they've always had and TFC will quickly be the third best Canadian team in MLS. They have 4 points from 2 home games and an away game to what pundits declared 3 of the 4 worst teams in the league. To work in NA they need to move forward on the pitch with purpose. Here I thought they were playing a good away game, but turns out that is how they play at home as well. Not good enough - even if they started winning with that style I can't see the casual fan flocking to the field.

Lawman

2 things are gonna help DC, New England and The Red Bulls. For the first two new stadiums and for the Bulls a rival in the City, Cosmos anyone?

PrairieboyAlex

Blue_and_White_Army said:

barca99 said:

Blue_and_White_Army said:
I really thought that NYRB would sell out their games. Shit, how many millions of people are in that area? 30? I didn't think getting 30,000 in an amazing facility, with some big name stars would be too hard to do. But then again, this is why the MLS badly wants a NYRB-LAG final.

They should have built in New York City. I know land is expensive, and planning permission is incredibly difficult to get, but if they have the money to sign the likes of Henry, surely they could have found a site in Brooklyn or wherever. Admittedly I've heard the trains out to the stadium in Jersey are pretty good, but there's F-all to do in that area after the match. Everyone gets back on a train and they all go in their separate directions. The post-match buzz gets segmented and dies off very quickly that way.

I think that's the Cosmos's plan. They want to build a stadium somewhere in the five boroughs and push it as New York's real team and the Red Bulls as New Jersey's team

barca99

I was in New York in 1999 when they were talking about building a new Yankee Stadium. They couldn't get land in Manhattan for the Yankees, so no way for the Red Bulls. Brooklyn is still a mystery to me. The Nets are supposed to move there, and maybe the NY Cosmos. But there hasn't been a pro sports team in Brooklyn since the Dodgers and Ebbot Field, so I really don't know how that will work.

piltdownman

Chris said:

Blue_and_White_Army said:
As much as we like to take the piss out of Toronto, it's worrying that they've come from (tens of?) thousands of people on a season-ticket waiting list to thousands of empty seats. Not good for Canadian club football. However, I'm sure the bandwagon will be heaving again once Toronto builds a winning team (hah!).

I don't know that I can blame anyone in Toronto for bailing. They pumped an awful lot of passion and money into that club, and got nothing in return for 4 (soon to be 5) years. Don't know that I'd stick around if the Caps showed that kind of indifference to their on-field product.

The bigger problem than lack of success is the increase in ticket prices during this time. Tickets have doubled from their 2007 rates. Last season they really took the piss out of their supporters after they fired their gm and coach and pretty much fucked around for the last 5 home games only to raise ticket prices 20%. If thing don't improve for them they are in big trouble. Now that games aren't sold out, scalpers will dump their season tickets as well as punters who have only kept their season tickets because it's exclusive.

Seattle might go the same direction. This season they have two price rates. People who's ticket prices have been frozen from year one and new people. Its like 30% more for new people. Next year the freeze is over and likely everyone will be paying the higher price. This season they didn't expand seating, and had to burn through 7k people on their ST list just to keep at their current level.

SAFC_Yank

Don't expect a big number from Colorado today. They had to scrape a couple inches of snow off the field prior to the game, and watching on Galavision, the skies are menacing and the crowd looks VERY sparse.

The_Real_Deal

SAFC_Yank said:
Don't expect a big number from Colorado today. They had to scrape a couple inches of snow off the field prior to the game, and watching on Galavision, the skies are menacing and the crowd looks VERY sparse.

I'm watching that now. It looks like Swangard behind the goal

Hammer

Blue_and_White_Army said:
New York were naive to think they could get 30,000 out to Jersey, despite the great stadium and big-name players. 20,000 expandable would have been much better. Other than Seattle, I don't think Americans appreciate the concept of creating demand.

As much as we like to take the piss out of Toronto, it's worrying that they've come from (tens of?) thousands of people on a season-ticket waiting list to thousands of empty seats. Not good for Canadian club football. However, I'm sure the bandwagon will be heaving again once Toronto builds a winning team (hah!).

Red bull stadium isn't even that big is it. Closer to 20k not 30k I thought. I'll check on that one.

piltdownman

^It's 25,189

SAFC_Yank

Blue_and_White_Army said:
Two major problems at New England Revs:

1.) Wrong kind of venue: They play in a 68,000-capacity NFL stadium. Not intimate at all.
2.) Crap location: The stadium is way out in Foxborough. That is very far from Boston - almost an hour's drive. Foxoborough is actually close to the state of Rhode Island than to Boston.
3.) Crap transportation: Public transit outside of Boston's downtown core is horrendously bad.

Seattle have a stadium near the downtown core, and it's heaving with people on matchday. Contrast that to MLS clubs with stadia way the hell out of the downtown core (New England, Columbus, and even New York's new venue), and they draw flies. It all comes down to bad city planning, which the Americans are world renowned for. Everyone is expected to get into their SUV and drive for miles. Meanwhile, there is NOTHING to do near the stadium. No central entertainment district, no pubs, no concerts - nothing.

One of the reasons Cascadia will be the envy of MLS is that our clubs will all be playing in downtown stadia.

Setting aside the Revs, there WAS a reason for the location of some of these stadiums.(And it had little to do with poor city planning, and if that's an American thing, what's the excuse for the arena in Ottawa?) The soccer-specific idea that was the rage wasn't going to make money off just an MLS side. So, one of the things that would bring in money was having facilities around it. So, especially in Dallas and Colorado, the stadiums are out in otherwise empty space because they've put tons of playing fields around them, hoping to make money off tournaments. Similar considerations in LA, not for youth tournaments, but for making money off other things - the south end of HDC shares a concourse with a tennis stadium.

Seattle kinda broke the spell, but you'd be amazed reading Big Soccer three years ago just how many people were furious that the mold was being broken.

WhitecapsFutbol · Post edited by WhitecapsFutbol at 2011-04-03 17:30:16

Following football in this MLS is a little wierd,.. because of course I want the Whitecaps to win and have a successful season,.. BUT at the same time when I see other teams in the league playing in other cities (heck, even TFC or Phili) in a strange way I am cheering them on in terms of sucess on and off the pitch because that means = successful fan base, more ticket sales, healthy club, healthy league, growth, and more sports fan acceptance of futbol in North America... Even when a team in some other city signs some overseas big name star, I'm happy for that, as little by little it all improves the product of MLS.. AND in the end it all comes back to Whitecaps FC who are in the same league... So in this sense,. Its a little wierd for me.. The only time I want other teams to loose is if they play the Whitecaps.

In relation to the just stated,.. I can't wait for NY to get an actual Manhattan based Cosmos team... That team had a ton of history,.. even internationally... and its a strong brand... I could see New Yorkers really getting behind that team,.. especially if the stadium is in manhattan.. Red Bulls would have to become The New Jersey Red Bulls.

vancouversoccerman

A couple of things to add. The location of most suburban stadiums isn't the result of urban planning... it's usually the result of offering the pro sports club more money, land or tax breaks than the city next to you. MLS swung these deals in a lot of cities.

Also, in NY Red Bulls' case, I guarantee that thousands of their season ticket base will jump to the NY Cosmos if they ever become a reality. Many of their hardcore did not like Red Bull taking over their team, and all the Thierry Henry's in the world won't make up for that.

Blue_and_White_Army · Post edited by Blue_and_White_Army at 2011-04-03 17:46:43

SAFC_Yank said:

Blue_and_White_Army said:
Setting aside the Revs, there WAS a reason for the location of some of these stadiums.(And it had little to do with poor city planning, and if that's an American thing, what's the excuse for the arena in Ottawa?) The soccer-specific idea that was the rage wasn't going to make money off just an MLS side. So, one of the things that would bring in money was having facilities around it. So, especially in Dallas and Colorado, the stadiums are out in otherwise empty space because they've put tons of playing fields around them, hoping to make money off tournaments. Similar considerations in LA, not for youth tournaments, but for making money off other things - the south end of HDC shares a concourse with a tennis stadium.

Seattle kinda broke the spell, but you'd be amazed reading Big Soccer three years ago just how many people were furious that the mold was being broken.

Funny stuff. Seattle has become the new mold, hasn't it?

Why not have a downtown stadium, and several fields out in the 'burbs for kiddie tournaments, and use the income from kiddie tournaments to fund the MLS club?

Can't think of why the MLS stadium and the kiddie tournament fields need to be adjacent to each other, other than that MLS expected the suburban soccer mom market to full the stands at suburban MLS stadia. That worked really well, didn't it!

18- to 45-males (and, increasingly, females) is a much better target market, as we've seen from Toronto, Seattle and Portland. Amazed how long it took the dimwits running the league to figure this out.

And yes, most city planning has been poor across North America, including Canada. Even much of Mexico is a suburban cesspit now.

Blue_and_White_Army · Post edited by Blue_and_White_Army at 2011-04-03 17:45:54

vancouversoccerman said:
A couple of things to add. The location of most suburban stadiums isn't the result of urban planning... it's usually the result of offering the pro sports club more money, land or tax breaks than the city next to you. MLS swung these deals in a lot of cities.

Also, in NY Red Bulls' case, I guarantee that thousands of their season ticket base will jump to the NY Cosmos if they ever become a reality. Many of their hardcore did not like Red Bull taking over their team, and all the Thierry Henry's in the world won't make up for that.

Regarding stadiums location and urban planning: it's both poor urban planning and "deals" that lead to suburban stadia. Most cities don't have the foresight to demarcate a certain percentage of land as "stadium-only", or they let developers buy a stadium and convert it to other uses. There's no reason why Manhattan, the densest part of North America, couldn't have marked off some parcels of land for stadiums several decades ago, and not charged any property tax on them. Their value would be lower than residential land, and thus relatively affordable for sports clubs to purchase, even today.

piltdownman

Blue_and_White_Army said:

SAFC_Yank said:

Blue_and_White_Army said:
Can't think of why the MLS stadium and the kiddie tournament fields need to be adjacent to each other, other than that MLS expected the soccer mom market to full the stands at MLS stadia. That worked really well, didn't it!

The reason for this is that in many of these arrangements the taxpayers are paying a massive chunk of the construction cost and the team get a stadium and dozen fields to rent out. If the two were separated then the team wouldn't get such a good deal, and the local governments would never be able to get it past the taxpayers. That is the reason for these arrangements. Pure and Simple.

Blue_and_White_Army

Fine. Then scrap the suburban fields altogether and just go with downtown stadia.

Neeskens1974

If the Cosmos become a reality, then the Red Bulls can shut up shop.

SAFC_Yank

Blue_and_White_Army said:

SAFC_Yank said:

Blue_and_White_Army said:
Setting aside the Revs, there WAS a reason for the location of some of these stadiums.(And it had little to do with poor city planning, and if that's an American thing, what's the excuse for the arena in Ottawa?) The soccer-specific idea that was the rage wasn't going to make money off just an MLS side. So, one of the things that would bring in money was having facilities around it. So, especially in Dallas and Colorado, the stadiums are out in otherwise empty space because they've put tons of playing fields around them, hoping to make money off tournaments. Similar considerations in LA, not for youth tournaments, but for making money off other things - the south end of HDC shares a concourse with a tennis stadium.

Seattle kinda broke the spell, but you'd be amazed reading Big Soccer three years ago just how many people were furious that the mold was being broken.

Funny stuff. Seattle has become the new mold, hasn't it?

Why not have a downtown stadium, and several fields out in the 'burbs for kiddie tournaments, and use the income from kiddie tournaments to fund the MLS club?

Can't think of why the MLS stadium and the kiddie tournament fields need to be adjacent to each other, other than that MLS expected the soccer mom market to full the stands at MLS stadia. That worked really well, didn't it!

18- to 45-males (and, increasingly, females) is a much better target market, as we've seen from Toronto, Seattle and Portland. Amazed how long it took the dimwits running the league to figure this out.

And yes, most city planning has been poor across North America, including Canada. Even much of Mexico is a suburban cesspit now.

Well, I think you've nailed it ... at the time, MLS was still aiming at filling the stadiums with soccer-playing families. The angle has changed, and the younger, louder types are more attracted to being downtown.
I don't think its an "either/or" thing, if you're going to pack the stadium consistently, you have to find a way achieve the balance of making both happy, but in the old days, MLS was almost exclusively aimed at families.

And I should, grudgingly, give some of the credit to Toronto, as well as Seattle.

Blue_and_White_Army

I'm just disappointed that New York, Colorado, and Philadelphia have all built new stadia way outside of the city centre. Mark my words - they will be considered mistakes in the years to come.

SAFC_Yank

Blue_and_White_Army said:
I'm just disappointed that New York, Colorado, and Philadelphia have all built new stadia way outside of the city centre. Mark my words - they will be considered mistakes in the years to come.

Devon, you should just promise yourself you'll never watch a game in Denver. Walking around that place will absolutely send you off the deep end.
:p

Blue_and_White_Army

^ Don't you mean "in Commerce City"? :p

SAFC_Yank

Quite right!

Evil_Bert

cosnidering how much pain the Whitecaps had in trying to build a downtown stadium, along with the problems DC is having building anywhere you can see why these clubs decided to build these parks way out in the suburbs.

The problem in a lot of cities in the same as in Vancouver where the suburbs flow downtown but not to each other. Getting from Surrey to downtown is easy, but to Port Moody is a pain in the **s.

also there are suburbs trying to get the credability factor. They think they will get more business if they allow the stadium there, so they welcome these owners with open arms and probably promises of biggest infustructure, or the promise that the stadium will be the lure for the infustruture that dosen't come.

If you have ever seen in a picture of Chester, PA (home of the Union) you can see why the went to get the park, they need all the help they could get.

However if the team stinks. Why make the journey.

Full90 · Post edited by Full90 at 2011-04-03 19:19:25

Blue_and_White_Army said:
Two major problems at New England Revs:

1.) Wrong kind of venue: They play in a 68,000-capacity NFL stadium. Not intimate at all.
Quest is similar, so explain the Sounders 36,000 person attendance....this point doesn't really have any claim does it.....
2.) Crap location: The stadium is way out in Foxborough. That is very far from Boston - almost an hour's drive. Foxoborough is actually close to the state of Rhode Island than to Boston.
Agreed. BUT The tailgating is fun, and a very American thing. I think there just isn't any interest in the REVS at all. I went to see Mexico vs Brazil at Gillette and it was PACKED, and everyone had a blast.

3.) Crap transportation: Public transit outside of Boston's downtown core is horrendously bad.
Agreed. EVERYONE has to drive. This is the biggest downside, along with being in the middle of fucking nowhere.

Seattle have a stadium near the downtown core, and it's heaving with people on matchday. Contrast that to MLS clubs with stadia way the hell out of the downtown core (New England, Columbus, and even New York's new venue), and they draw flies. It all comes down to bad city planning, which the Americans are world renowned for. Everyone is expected to get into their SUV and drive for miles. Meanwhile, there is NOTHING to do near the stadium. No central entertainment district, no pubs, no concerts - nothing.

One of the reasons Cascadia will be the envy of MLS is that our clubs will all be playing in downtown stadia. Agreed !

Blue_and_White_Army

An NFL/CFL stadium only works if you can pack the entire lower bowl, like in Seattle and Vancouver. Only filling a quarter of the lower bowl is bad enough, even if you try to ignore the upper bowl.

Chris

Blue_and_White_Army said:
An NFL/CFL stadium only works if you can pack the entire lower bowl, like in Seattle and Vancouver. Only filling a quarter of the lower bowl is bad enough, even if you try to ignore the upper bowl.

Exactly. Qwest and Empire work because they're packed and rocking. If the atmosphere dies a little, different story.

Full90

^^^ Totally agree with the pair of you.

When I watched a Revs game in Gillette, not only did they only sell the lower bowl, but only one half of it too, so that it looked like more people on TV !!!

Brenton · Post edited by Brenton at 2012-04-27 14:17:30

VanCityVilla said:

Great article comparing distances of MLS stadiums from their urban cores with recent club attendance figures (Soccer Newsday)

BianconeroSouthsider

We've dropped just under 2000 in attendance, not bad. I'm still surprised that Dallas drew such a small crowd for a successful team.

Subhedgehog

50km drive to the stadium from Dallas proper? Not surprised that there's lower than expected attendance for their achievement.

vancouversoccerman

Subhedgehog said: 50km drive to the stadium from Dallas proper? Not surprised that there's lower than expected attendance for their achievement.

Tolled highways surrounding it to boot!

Evil_Bert

New England is suffering too being out too far from everything. It's amazing how well Philly does being so far out the city themselves.

Evil_Bert

vancouversoccerman said:

Subhedgehog said: 50km drive to the stadium from Dallas proper? Not surprised that there's lower than expected attendance for their achievement.

Tolled highways surrounding it to boot!

it is just me or has no Dallas fan ever showed up at any of these fan summits?

BianconeroSouthsider

Subhedgehog said: 50km drive to the stadium from Dallas proper? Not surprised that there's lower than expected attendance for their achievement.

Still, I'd expect them to get a few more fans if they're a successful club. If you're a winning team, people will show up.

The_Real_Deal

Evil_Bert said:

vancouversoccerman said:

Subhedgehog said: 50km drive to the stadium from Dallas proper? Not surprised that there's lower than expected attendance for their achievement.

Tolled highways surrounding it to boot!

it is just me or has no Dallas fan ever showed up at any of these fan summits?

they didn't send any representatives to the ISC summit in February

OldFan

Just imagine if the Whitecaps built their SSS in Yarrow. That is what the distance is for some of these clubs outside of their downtown core.

You have to be downtown or you are going to have a brutal time making it big. And it is not about the distance, it is about things "around" the stadium.... clubs, bars, restaurants, hotels, etc that make people come to your building.

Any club that builds its SSS away from downtown is crippling themselves.

bili

Where is Yarrow?

dedagn

bili said: Where is Yarrow?

A little SW of Chilliwack, on the road to Cultis Lake.

Home Join Forum About Songs Store Blog Charity Travel Contact Us

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion