http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA041405.1B.guerra.1d6179918.html Check this out. This is the deal that San Antonio is going to give to an MLS team: Free rent, plus concessions, parking, etc. Half the rent collected from other events New artificial grass turf and much more, to the tune of millions.
Sweet. After reading the second article, I am all for MLS in San Antonio. What a sweet deal. The alamodome is probably 10 times better for MLS than Giants stadium. Since it's a dome, there will be better atmosphere and they can down scale the stadium capacity to like 25k by closing off the rest. It's possible, when the NBA Spurs play there, they downscaled the capacity.
They downscaled it by putting a giant curtain across what would be the middle of the soccer/football field. So in other words, for soccer you would not get the same effect that the Spurs configuration had. It sounds like a good deal and would welcome San Antonio to the league, but I would hope it is not at the expense of KC or SJ. It is encouraging that the mayor is hyping the idea of an MLS team up and working on it--too bad SJ's mayor isn't as proactive. I don't have as a big a problem with large stadium as most do and I think the dome would be okay
Still, if you tarp off the top it would be all right. It's not what the fans of the league are looking for in SSS's, but you get all the benefits of building one (control of revenue streams) without any of the cost. If I was worth a billion or so I would look into it.
I think it's amazing that a city wants MLS so badly. When has that ever happened? San Antonio definitely will get a team in the next few years, hopefully by expansion but whatever.
primary tenant in a dome in Texas? not bad, not bad at all. atmosphere will be a concern, but Chivas USA fans showed everyone that a lot of it is attitude. If the field doesn't look like KC/NE and they tarp off the top, maybe it'll look decent. NE isn't getting a SSS in the next few years. Give it some time and maybe San Antonio can pull off a Frisco like deal, especially if high scool football goes nuts over Frisco.
Wait, let me say that again. . . NO ********ING WAY. That's brilliant. I mean. . .wow. Of course there's the "oh but it's indoors" and "oh but it's not grass" If you saw the pitch at Arrowhead or Gilette in the last two weeks, you could see why this isn't a problem for me.
I'm not trying to take a shot at the Burn here, but is there really a market for 3 teams in the state? Ok, you put CA in Houston or San Antonio, why have a third team? It will be interesting to see how the Burn do in a stadium of their own (I'm sure things will get better), but can Texas really support 3 teams? Does it really deserve three teams when Seattle, Cleveland, Philly, Rochester all are great potential markets and rapid expansion is what the league needs to avoid?
Actually, SJ Mayor Ron Gonzales has been more proactive lately, even so far as speaking at the pre-game rally held two days before the home/season opener. But whether or not San Jose gets a stadium isn't fully up to him anyway. City Councilmembers Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese and Chuck Reed are the ones who are brokering a stadium deal along with SSV and San Jose State University. -G
Off topic, but I've never understood this connection between putting tarp over unused seats, and making a place feel smaller. It's not the sight of seats at big stadiums that makes them inappropriate, it's the massive unused space. Tarp doesn't change that at all.
At Gillette, it keeps the balls from getting stuck up between the seats- they bounce right back down near the field.
Well, if I was a taxpayer in San Antonio I'd be livid. However, I'm not and this looks like a great deal for MLS! Never mind a mexican team, surely any investor in the US can see that this is an excellent opportunity. So good, infact, that I don't understand why? There's no need to be quite so generous....and any prospective landlord should be aware of that, even if some of those things don't turn out to be true. I don't see that they should make taxpayers pay for the team to come, sure the facility is built and empty, but that doesn't mean they should relinquish naming rights either. I just think if they can keep the costs real then it's fine. On the other hand, can anyone answer this, how old is the Alamodome? Has it already recouped most of it's costs Vs Depreciation? if so, that could explain why they're prepared to be so accommodating. As for a roof? No biggie, there's stadiums all over the world that have retractable roofs. The dome might keep some of that oppressive Texas heat out!
Hey, if it means moving the franchise to a city that actually does something for the franchise, and in this case bends over backward for it, then that's too bad for KC and SJ.
This is in incredible deal... ...and, as far as the idea of a dome is concerned, I don't have a problem with it (in fact I rather like it in Texas)... The problems with a huge stadium for soccer in the US boil down to: 1. too many empty seats 2. the crowd noise just escapes and dissipates in the big space I don't think these are problems because: In domes, the stands are built almost on top of one another with a relativley small lower bowl (in order to keep the footprint of the overall building, and particularly the roof, small)... I don't know specifically about the Alamodome, but the other domes I have been to (the Carrierdome, and Reliant stadium) that is true... The nearest that an outdoor stadium comes to this effect in MLS is Soldier Field in Chicago... the decks go vertical in order to fit the new stadium within the walls of the old stadium (basically the way the stadium was built)... when you are in the tadium, you hardly notice the massive empty seats above (it is almost like having a roof) and the stadium is rocking with only the lower bowl filled... I think there will be the same effect in the Alamodome as far as lack of crowd noise is concerned, I think the roof will prevent that from being a problem... the only other downside is the fact that it will be artificial turf... that is becoming less and less of a problem and I think you are going to find many major clubs playing on variations of artifical turf in the near future... yeah, it is not perfect, from the perspective of an old traditionalist, but better than a lousy turf and it plays and looks like regular grass from the perspective of a fan... On the plus side (from a soccer side and leaving out the financially sweet deal;-) they won't have to deal with the Texas weather in the summer (how, exactly, do you prepare for a 4PM kickoff in August in Texas?!?!?!) Rand
This looks almost too good to be true. When you factor in the debt service of building your own SSS, this deal may actually be better (from a pure financial stand point). Andy
I have no idea, but I think that it is wide enough. There was plenty of room on the sidelines before for the football teams to stand. So it will be widened. In fact, they could potentially make the benches sit in the stands like in England. Another great thing about playing in a dome - there is no crown on that field. Cut off the upper section, and you have a 25K seat stadium
Actually think about it. For San Antionio, the place just gathers dust most of the year, so if they can get the operating costs off of their hands for 20 weekends a year, that is a bonus. Also, for SA to attract a team otherwise, they would have to foot the bill for half of a soccer stadium. So the city would have to pay 20 million bucks in any other circumstance in order to lure a team. Having to pay only 6 million is a much, much better deal for the city. The alamodome is great. It is a great place to watch a game, and it is in a fantastic location! I know I, for one, would travel down there to watch every FCD - SA match. It is right across the street from the riverwalk, so it is a great place to go for a night or a weekend to catch a game. In fact, I would go as far as to actually recommend that MLS hold the cup there every year, adduming that the turf system plays well. It would be a great place for fans from other teams to travel to to catch the cup, SA has good facilities for league meetings, the game would not be subject to weather, and the stadium can hold 55K for brisk ticket demand of a Cup game.
The Mexican national team has already played at least two games at the Alamodome. I watched them on Telemundo and one game looked like they had actually brought in natural grass. Not totally sure on that though. The other game was on FieldTurf and that game actually looked bad. If they could get it to look good, like the turf they have in the Costa Rican stadium where Saprissa playes their games, it should look much better. As far as relocation of Kansas City or San Jose, I say move Kansas City. Put them back into the Western Conference, and then bring up Rochester to fill the void in the East and then add Toronto.
They played on the fake turf but it seems that the latest turf designs are better than the one currently in Alamodome, with better tafting and so on, and this will be offered to a new tenant. BTW, field size didn't seem to be a problem either.