My bad. Not sure where I got 27,000. It seemed like there was 27,000 the way it was packed against Columbus. But yeah people have no idea how much the DCU fans and DCU ownership have had to put up with. One can only hope this time it's finally getting done. It would be a good gesture to give RFK a qualifer for the DCU fans and DC fans in general. If not so be it but if they don't choose RFK it shouldn't be because of the DC officials. Not giving DC a qualiferdue to the stadium issues punishes the fans not the officials. Hell "Keep United in DC banners" have been showing up in opposing MLS stadiums. Everyone knows how much our fans care about their team. The very mention of moving to Baltimore sent everyone into near riot.
Well, I can tell you as AODC membership chair, we are ready for another match here, no matter whether it's a qualifier, friendly or the Women. RFK on Saturday was otherworldly, especially on that final goal. The stadium literally shook!
Screaming Eagle here (I'm always at Gus's here in Richmond to watch the qualifers with AO Richmond chapter). DC fans always show up and can anyone really say it wasn't cool in 2009 seeing all the US fans bouncing the bleachers like hell in the final qualifier which then ended up in absolutely craziness on the tying goal?
I'm not sure how much that would help with Costa Rica. They have something like 7 players that play in Scandinavia. They also have 3 or 4 players in other cold European countries.
Looks like Ives was looking at Big Soccer over the weekend for a story idea: http://www.soccerbyives.net/2012/10...eading-candidates-to-host-hex-qualifiers.html I've been giving it thought, why not play Mexico in Seattle, on the turf? Might screw with their heads a little.
Though, I'll bet you that every European player is on a club with an indoor facility with field turf. They do use it in bad weather. Sure they may not be a favorite, but they are on it from time to time.
For me, practicing on turf is different than playing on it. All our Euro's on the NT play every week on grass. Why add another element which might go against us in a WCQer? I don't even want our guys thinking about it or getting worried about turf leading up to such an important game. They have enough to think about. If we were ever going to consider playing in Sea for a NT game, at the least try it for a friendly first, not against the top CONCACAF team in a WCQer. If Sea wants the NT to play their bad enough, they'll get grass. With all the revenue they get from almost 40K fans per, not sure why it isn't financially feasible. For people who say turf doesn't matter, it was teh @Van game in April where Shea suffered a turf toe injury, and it ruined his season with lingering injuries as a result of the turf toe.
Cetntury Link's main use is for the Seattle Seahawks. If the football team wants the turf than I don't think they'll change it for a soccer team
What do you guys think of Red Bull Arena? I don't think they'll get one, but it's a beautiful field (and I live right there haha).
I enjoy going to Red Bull Arena, but the problem with any venue here in the greater NYC area is that the Mexicans, the Jamaicans, and the Hondurans would probably outnumber us significantly, and we'd be giving the Panamanians and Costa Ricans about their best chance at showing up in numbers.
Yup. The New York Media along with the US Federation would have to hype it up a lot in order to get a good Pro-USA crowd. It would be easier and cheaper to just go to another stadium with fans who care.
Not sure why NYC should be any harder than Philly or Harford. You are talking about the same drives or distances for fans coming from the northeast. The other CONCACAF countries would have a similar commute. The northeast is fairly packed in from Boston to D.C.
There are plenty of US fans who care in the NY. It's simply that there are also plenty of Mexican, Honduran, and Jamaican fans who also care.
Well, Hartford has had a good history of hosting matches with a pro-usa feel to them. Philly in general has also hosted matches in the Gold cup and friendlies that had more of a home feel to them. New York/ NJ is a different animal. That area has never hosted a WCQ that I know of.
Well, they don't care as much as opposing fans. Many of the fans from other CONCACAF teams would do anything for tickets in NYC. The season ticket holders from other MLS teams would buy up tickets fast. New York area fans not so much.
But the point is that US fans will travel 2-3 hours to see the Nat team play. Anyone going to Hartford or Philly are in that same wheelhouse for NYC. You are talking in excess of 20 million people. You can find enough fans to fill RBA very quickly if it was a meaningful match. You are heaping a reputation on an area due to games in the Meadowlands (dare you to find ANY NFL stadium that has provided the US with overwhelming support when crowds grow in excess of 40-50,ooo) and one meaningless friendly at RBA.
Philly/Chester has a better season ticket base that I believe would jump quickly in order to host their first WCQ at their soccer specific stadium. Hartford has proven that people in the area along with people coming in from Foxboro and Boston could provide a good home field advantage. I am not sure RED Bull Arena would provide the same feeling. It felt like a Ecuador home match last time the USA played there.
Philly? You mean like how they had 8800 people total, including a bunch of fans for the other team for a match vs. Colombia - the first they held in their park. That would make it about as comparable as 20000+ at RBA the only time that that stadium has hosted the USMNT.
As I said in a previous post the Philly area was over-saturated with soccer events so a meaningless 0-0 friendly was low on the priority list for Philadelphia soccer fans. A World Cup qualifier would be different and the atmosphere would be more reminiscent of what we saw against Turkey in a friendly that felt very pro-USA. I don't believe the same buzz can be created in new york/new jersey unless it is hyped up by the redbulls and local media. That takes more money and effort.
Yeah, because NYC never sees a big time soccer match show up in any of the four stadiums that host them. You do realize that you are comparing a match vs. a South American team compared to a match vs. a Eurasian country, don't you? I'm shocked that the huge Turkish American population didn't turn out
If Atlanta builds the new stadium (blank wants it to host soccer events) for the falcons it will work.
First off with the exception of two posts no discussion of hosting a match in the most populous state in the country. I understand the concerns about keeping it a pro-us crowd but there is not a particularly large Jamaican population in California, and we haven't had a qualifier in a generation So my choices would be. Jam-HDC Panama-SLC Hon-Chicago Gau- Hartford Mexico-Barrow, Alaska
I realize that you're half joking, but here are some opinions. I like the idea of Jamaica in California. I don't like the idea of Honduras in Chicago any more than I liked it in 2009. I think Columbus deserves a game. I like the stadium in Hartford, but Hartford has the disadvantage that it doesn't have a base of MLS season-ticket holders to whom you can give a head-start on tickets and help to get a pro-US crowd.
I do realize that. I just think it will be easier and more efficient to sell tickets and guarantee a pro-usa atmosphere in places that have established that precedent. Red Bull Arena could very well be a good venue, but I think the other venues in Connecticut and Pennsylvania are better options. I think many people agree with that premise along with the Fed.