NO, I don't have to look at it through the eyes of the league. In the league's eyes, the best possible outcome is that one or both of el-lay and NYJ are in the MLS Cup final every year. As far as the league is concerned, all other teams exist to give NYJ and el-lay someone to play. Were I in the league's shoes, I would not have made the move to put the Cup Final in the highest seed's house until I liked every house. Right now, I don't. Do you want MLS Cup held in RFK? Saputo? BMO? or Jeld-Wen? Buck Shaw isn't the only stadium that I find objectionable for the Cup. HOWEVER, as long as MLS made the call, then MLS should sleep with it. Then they shouldn't have made the change. I thought after the freezing storm in BMO that they'd have decided to hold the Cup Final only in good weather cities. Can you feature playing the Cup match in Saputo, in the snow? How's Chitcago in November? MLS screwed up. They don't like our stadium. They should have considered that in advance. Let's all get down on our knees and thank the front office for getting a stadium done at all! No other owners have ever even gotten to identifying a site for a stadium, much buying the land and getting all of the permits done. This is an amazing achievement. Look at how long it took NYJ, or Houscum. Our owners took a leap of faith. They brought OUR team back from the dead. They got a stadium deal done in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Our owners and FO totally rock. Drink it. No, I'm not. Which denies us Home Field Advantage. Screw 'em. We're playing the cup game in Buck Shaw, and Gerber can kiss my ass! GOOOOOO QUAAAAAAKES!!!!!!! F#$% MLS!! - Mark
I would be surprised to see a final at Buck Shaw. I suppose it could happen. Nobody has suggested temporary seating, but that might be doable.....just added to the existing temporary seating, plus to the open end. Considering the fact that they should not be required to provide any more than 18,000 seats (that is how many the new stadium will have). Maybe it's possible to somehow squeeze an additional 8,000 into Buck Shaw. Of course, there would be the problem of restrooms, concessions, access, parking, etc., so even if it could be done, it's an unlikely solution. My guess is that Stanford is the first choice. They will probably wait until the last possible minute on Stanford's schedule to rule it out. Second choice is likely Spartan Stadium. Covering the field with a temporary natural turf has been done elsewhere. It was done during the World Cup in 1994 at multiple stadiums and has been done elsewhere since then. Regardless of field size (which I agree is too small), having a "home" crowd outweighs the inadequate pitch. One thing we know about Spartan (and to a some extent, Stanford, if it is full) is that the atmosphere created by the home crowd is unmatched anywhere in MLS.
The logistical issues surrounding Stanford (remember getting out of there after the July game?) make it -- to me -- a sub-optimal second choice to Buck Shaw. Everybody else hates BS. Golden Balls has never deigned to put in an appearance there -- probably because the visitors locker room is far too cramped for his nibs entourage. It is an uncomfortable, unwelcoming place for opponents to play and as far as I'm concerned, it works immensely in our favor. I think Wolff & Co. should dig in their heels on this one and hold Garber to his word. Goodness knows nobody else has ever been able to...
The entire permanent part of Buck Shaw Stadium is less than 7,000 capacity. Where exactly could a temporary structure bigger than that be placed?
This is the bottom line. Back when the new venue rule was put in place, Buck Shaw as the venue of the MLS Cup final in 2012 was improbable, but not unforeseeable and, indeed, not unforeseen, since Don Garber was reportedly questioned about the possibility at last year's supporters summit.
We could put seats above and behind the temporary western stands. We can put more seats in the "open" end. We could put temporary seats where people stand along the fence in the Supporters' end, but we'd have to be able to leave the walk way open under those seats. We might, I emphasize might, be able to put more seats on the press box side, attaching them to the top edge of the stadium and to the press box. Even so, I don't think that we could squeeze more than another two, or at the very most, three thousands seats into Buck Shaw. I'd still prefer to have the Cup Final in Buck Shaw than any other stadium anywhere. GO QUAKES!! F#$% Gerber!! - Mark
First, IF we make it to the cup and IF it's at Stanford, none of you need get caught in the traffic because there are lots of options other than parking on campus. Next, no matter what attendance has been in the past, it is a problem that no one will know where the game is to be played until a few weeks ahead of time. Not just for the fans, who have to scramble, but for the venue operators. Stanford events require a massive amount of coordination that has to occur with various Palo Alto city depts and the county (since Stanford is county). They get the calendar for school sports and other university events about a year ahead of time so they can prepare. Having organized much smaller big events, I can't even imagine doing that on a dime.
At short notice the best they could do is throw a few more seats into the scoreboard end. Probably measured in the hundreds, rather than thousands. For sellout games Buck Shaw is already a cramped venue, difficult to move around in at many places. I would dread to see what it would be like with thousands more trying to get about.
Pardon my foresight. I was thinking that if they've been looking at Buck Shaw, Spartan, and Stanferd for a few weeks now, that someone in the organization would have been tasked with figuring out how to add more seats to Buck Shaw. So it ought not to be on short notice. I bet the folks who put in the current temporary seats could come up with a plan to add two to three thousand more in just a few hours. They are professionals after all. Getting more people in and out would suck. They'd need a lot of extra folks to direct traffic, and maybe some shuttle busses, or extra Cal Train runs. Besides, we're just thinking out loud here. Chances are, we'll play at Stanferd. GO QUAKES!!! F#$% MLS!! - Mark
Nowhere did I suggest that it could be done. I merely made the comment that "if it was doable". If it could be done, it would have to be in place of the current temporary seats, with a much higher structure. They would also have to enclose the open end, as well as the corners. Whether that could account for enough additional seats, should it be able to be accomplished, who knows? Just an idea. No worse than playing in San Francisco.
Holding a regular season game out of necessity is one thing. Holding the MLS Cup is quite another. It would be a coup for the Giants to have that happen, and you won't see Wolff make it happen for them.
What was the necessity behind having the Houston game there? And the game would be held at "AT&T Park" , it's not like the broadcasters would be referring to it as "Giants Stadium" at every opportunity. I doubt Wolff would turn his back on it just because a camera angle captures a Giants reference on occasion. Baseball stadiums make for lousy soccer stadiums, which is the likely reason the Quakes are not considering AT&T or the A's park.
Buck Shaw was in use for something by SCU as I recall. As for referring to it as "Giants Stadium" they wouldn't do that, but you can bet the Giants and the World Series win would get mentions. And the A's don't play in a baseball park. They haven't since 1967.
The Houston game was at AT&T Park because it was part of a doubleheader with the Mexico U-23's vs. Senegal U-23's. The FO moved it from Buck Shaw not because of any scheduling conflict, but to accomodate the larger crowd expected for the Mexico-Senegal match and for a larger payday. I agree that AT&T Park is awful for soccer.
Since we are just thinking out loud here, a "hard" conflict doesn't really exist at Stanford. If Stanford football, perchance, does end up in a position to host the Pac 12 Championship, it would take place Friday night, Nov. 30th. The MLS Cup is scheduled for Dec. 1. While a stadium turn around would be difficult and not something the university is really set up to do, it would be possible. The painted field would probably be the most difficult issue. But what if the MLS Cup match was moved to Sunday, Dec 2nd? That would make the stadium turnaround success likelier. There could be shared resources like VIP tents, television production equipment and press corps support. There would be the conflict with NFL games for national TV ratings, but you could push the game to 5pm pst and have a conflict with only one, Sunday night NFL, which is currently scheduled to be a game between Dallas and Philly (both have losing records right now). And soccer is best at night with a dew-damp pitch. Even the Euro snobs would approve! The only caveat I would add is that the stadium allows in and out privileges for a "halftime break" like they did for the LA Galaxy match earlier this year.
MLS already has an ESPN timeslot of 1:30 pm on 12/1. It can't just move to another day. Stanford is not an option if it's hosting the Pac 12 game. Neither the university nor MLS would allow it.
O.co is the home of the Raiders as well. The configuration for football is not that bad: It can host soccer matches easily. Another pic: P.S.: I am sorry if this has already come up. I really have not read the whole thread. The biggest problem is the fact that the Raiders host Cleveland on 12/2.