Orlando Stadium Ideas

One big difference between Orlando and NYC2 that you're missing is that there is no equivalent to the Citrus Bowl for NYC2.

What MLS is most insistent on for NYC2, is that a stadium situation be worked out in the 5 boroughs. There are no big football stadiums in the 5 boroughs period. If there were some huge football stadium within the 5 boroughs in which NYC2 could play without being ripped off with respect to rent, I think MLS would very much consider awarding them a team even if there were no pending SSS.

I think Seattle has blown away the in-the-box thinking that each team must have a SSS. Not many people predicted that Seattle would average 35,000 fans a game. If Seattle instead had their own 20,000 SSS, their situation would be worse than it presently is (other than maybe that they wouldn't have to play on turf). So good thing that MLS didn't follow your protocol for Seattle.

What MLS is now going to do is demand that new franchises fulfill a lot of key indicators of future success which could include having a SSS but would not absolutely require the SSS.

 

for the last time. Seattle and CenturyLink are NOT relevant or comparable to Orlando and the Citrus Bowl.

Century Link: Opened in 2002, designed specifically to accommodate soccer and an MLS team, controlled (schedule & revenue) 100% by the same entity that owns/operates the MLS team.

Citrus Bowl: Opened 1936, designed so long ago 99% of americans had never even heard of the sport of soccer, stadium is controlled by the city and any MLS team would have second consideration to college football bowl games and the revenue would not be 100% controlled by the MLS team.

and if you think that Orlando is anywhere near as soccer fervent as the PacNW and that Orlando could ever get 35K to regular season MLS games then you are just too delusional to even have a rational conversation with. Orlando would do very well to attract 18K-20K (and i think they could do that with the proper ownership/marketing in MLS) ... at most they'd attract 22K (putting them in the top 5 in MLS ... and at 22K they would be swallowed up in the CB ... renovation or not ... and the atmosphere would be just as dead and pathetic as the situations were back in MLS 1.0.

 

Not to nit pick, but other events do happen at TP and the village gets the money.

I know that the Lingerie league plays there.

There used to be a Lacrosse team, the Chicago Red Stars used to play there, and there are High School games played there, the city gets that revenue.

But yes the main event at TP is the FIRE.

AEG may still be involved on the event planning for the park.

Also to note, the whitecaps are not the only users at the BC place, The BC Lions of the CFL are the main reason BC was renovated.

The Province owns and controls the stadium, the Whitecaps only rent the stadium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Pavilion_Corporation

 

they control the MLS related revenue. sure, they may not "own" the stadium and thus not get the peripheral revenue but that is just icing ... they have control over what matters most.

as for BC Place A. it was mostly renovated for the Olympics B. the Whitecaps agreed to share the place with the Lions because as i understand it their "rent" deal and revenue control for their games is essentially absolutely in their favour. otherwise they would have built their own stadium ... after spending so much money on renovation the government had to have tenants so they basically did whatever the could to get the Lions and Whitecaps locked in with very very very favourable deals. even then it is a situation that only works because the stadium is domed and thus can have an inner roof that essential turns the stadium into a 24K stadium.

 

Your arguments sure have a lot of holes in them for how insistent you are, or at least you haven't supported yourself well with the information you have provided in this thread.

I don't know much about the Citrus Bowl configuration. Are the sightlines bad for soccer there? Is the field too narrow?

If not, then how is it relevant whether soccer was popular when the stadium was designed or not, especially if $200 million worth of renovations are coming to the lower bowl of the stadium soon?

FYI in case you know practically nothing about college football, a college football bowl game occurs only once a year and in December or January, i.e. during the MLS offseason. So if the bowl game gets priority over an MLS team at the end of December, I don't think that would seriously effect the MLS team.

Your mindset about attendances is so MLS 1.5 or 2.0. MLS 3.0 thinking is that the game itself is great enough that some day possibly even soon even non-traditional soccer markets can have 30,000+per game average attendances.

 

Correct, is doubtful that Orlando can get something similar, but maybe they can, so owning an SSS is not a deal-breaker IMO.

But serious renovations would be needed:

They can tarp over the top sections that is not issue, but they would need to convert the bottom 2 sections to single seats, at least the side sections.

And yes if they can control all the game time revenues that would be great.




I actually do not know how the FIRE and Bridgeview split up the game time revenue, as far as I know only parking goes to the city, everything inside the stadium I think goes to the FIRE.

 

Well if they can make it a 30K SSS by covering the top and rebuilding the lower bowls I think it could work, BC place could be used as a guide.

Even if they only sell 18-20K at first, it would just look like RB stadium with most games 2/3s full.

Better that 18K inside a 60K stadium.

 

If they are willing to spend $200 million to upgrade the CB why not just spend that money to build a SSS instead? The Earthquakes new stadium is supposed to only be around $60 million to build.

 

The city is putting up the 200 million, I am sure they want to upgrade the Citrus bowl for more than just soccer.

 

Nah, it's not bad. They list dimensions as 115 x 75.

You'd think $200M could do some good, yeah? I don't know what you get for $200M anymore, though.

Until Waldo gets his way.

Gonna need some new stadiums, then. Because that many people won't fit in most of the stadiums we've built recently.

 

I think the source of the funds meant it was earmarked for more than just a narrow-purpose SSS. Plus, it apparently came from a 2007 initiative, long before anyone thought of moving Austin to Orlando. (And it's apparently $175 million, but that's a quibble.)

The Sentinel has called for the improvements to be made sooner rather than later - and not just for soccer.

I know soccer fans tend to think rather narrowly, but most discussions of public funds don't get very far when applied solely to your pet hobby.

 

how can BC Place be used as a guide? it has a roof ... a $400M dollar roof that allows an inner roof/curtain to completely cordon off the lower bowl of BC Place which is then transformed into a perfectly sized 24K seat soccer stadium.

have you seen the CB?

here is the seating chart:



the 100 level would be too small for an MLS team ... and covering the 200 and 300 level both would look retarded.

if you open 100 and 200 and only cover the 300 then the stadium looks like it would be 40K or above ... so then you'd end up in an MLS 1.0 playing in a giant empty stadium situation.

the CB cannot be renovated into a suitable stadium that will accomodate an MLS team likely to average 18K-22K in an MLS 3.0 viable atmosphere in person and on television.

 

Trust me, being a Portland fan, I know how hard it is to get a city to back spending money to upgrade a stadium for soccer.

 

Even without a SSS I think Orlando should be on the top of the list for expansion. Simply because at this point they have things that most other cities don't have. A team, decent support, and a place to play. Even if the last isn't the most favorable for the league at least it has something that Portland doesn't have, room to grow.

 

yeah. other than those pesky facts that every expansion team since 2005 has had a SSS or one specificially designed/configured for suitable soccer capaicty and/or a stadium the team controls.

and when the OCSC playing in the CB wants to put in a grass field and the two bowl games want to keep the AstroTurf who you think is going to win that battle? let me give you a hint .... it won't be OCSC. when you don't control your venue those kinds of decisions ... and many others ... are out of your hands.

look, i am done arguing with people who are obviously so blinded by the desire to see an MLS team in their home town that they lose nearly all objectivity.

you think the CB is a viable option for an MLS expansion team and that the league won't take issue with going all 1999 throwback and wants to see its brand new shiny 21st team rattling around in a 3/4ths of a century old stadium who's capacity ... even with the 300 section tarped off, is going to dwarf any attendance and make the whole thing look like a joke than more power to you.

but if i were serious about getting an MLS team in Orlando i would realize the league isn't desperate to expand like it was in 2005 ... it can bide it's time ... like it is doing even in the market they covet the most NYC2 ... until everything is just the way they want it ... and to have the best chance to get an expansion team in Orlando is to do what every other single expansion team has done since 2005 ... fork over the cash, have a SSS, and show that your town can support (in fans and corporate sponsorship) an MLS team at the level we've come to expect of new expansion teams. because thinking you can shirk on the stadium requirement and get by with some half-assed solution straight out of 1999 is a sure way to become the next St Louis.

 

That was a point I made, they would have to get the city to agree to rebuild 100's and 200's level seats into single seat format, that will reduce the number of seats, now to how many, I am not sure.

35K?

30K?

25K?

I think if they can get them to 30K and below that is workable, but that would mean reducing the over all capacity to below 50K; that may be a big no for the city if they hope to bring back big bowl games.

 

hmm. well that would be one heck of a renovation. as it stands the CB simply cannot house an MLS team properly. the 100s look like they hold 12-15K (perfect for a very successful D2/D3 team oddly enough). but if you add the 200s it looks like it is at least 40K and probably more like 45K. and obviously the all 3 levels are 70K.

if you could some how turn the stadium into a two level stadium where the lower portion had 25K ... then you might have a passable (not good or even desirable but simply adequate) situation.

but your point is well made ... is that possible architecturally? and if so what does that do to the overall capacity?

and let's not forget ... this proposed $200M renovation is primarily being done or the college bowl games ... soccer was and is an after thought. so the leeway the renovation is going to have to be "soccer specific" is probably very limited. and then, say a miracle occurs and it can be renovated in the best way possible (which remember only gets us to "adequate" ... then you are likely locked into a medium to long term lease as a condition of said favourable renovation. and i think we can all agree that MLS is hardly going to be super stoked to put a team into the league that is locked into a 5-10 stint in a stadium situation that is barely passable and pretty much is a straight throw back to the bad old days.

 

Except that's not true. CentryLink is NOT a SSS, it was designed with football in mind first and for most, and the Seahawks come first. While Paul Allen used soccer to help get it built I doubt he thought there would ever be soccer played in it. BC place isn't really designed with soccer in mind either. I will agree that both are much more suited for soccer than the CB is at the moment.

Also I hardly think that Jeld-Wen has a suitable soccer capacity. I understand why they did what they did, but they really should have at least 5k more seats in that stadium.

Edit: I'll also add that when Seattle was added to the league they had averaged around 5,000 in attendance in USL and nobody expected them to be getting 30,000+ in MLS. Despite this MLS was still willing to let them play in Qwest/Centrylink.

 

Except it's not true.

Seattle drew 25,515 against Vancouver on July 28, 2002 in the first sporting event held at what was then Seahawks Stadium.

 

Man, what a drama that whole thing was. The whole thing with Memorial Coliseum and the baseball stadium. Oy.

There doesn't have to be a list to be on top of right now. The perception of a list is good for the league, I guess.

And didn't Portland expand Jeld-Wen over the offseason?

Sometimes ticket scarcity is a good thing, too.

And the way this league has gone, nobody without a proper stadium (or plans for one) should be on the top of an expansion list.

 

Rice-Eccles was none of those things.

 

Yes that is the biggest issue I see, the renovations is to attract better bowl games, so reducing the capacity would go against that, Now like some one commented, maybe Orlando will pull a Seattle and have 30K people show up every-game in MLS (yes pie in the sky for sure) but may be worth a shot, the again if not, you would end up with a DC United situation.

Maybe any bid from Orlando must wait until the renovations are done to see if the stadium would prosper, or a plan to build a SSS a few years after the expansion.

I definitely do not see Orlando in MLS for the next 3-4 years; shit if stadiums are such a deal I do not see NY2 for 5-6 years.

PS If you look at Minnesota and Atlanta threads, it sounds like they are all putting their hopes on NFL stadiums and NFL owners, sure a brand new 60K stadium looks nicer than a 100 year old college stadium, but 20K people inside a 60K stadium still the same problem.

 

remind me again when did RSL join the league?