Problem with Seattle bid for 2006

Discussion in 'Seattle Sounders FC' started by nsamsarmy, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. nsamsarmy

    nsamsarmy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I've read how Adrian Hanauer is so commited to an MLS team in Seattle, and Garber was quoted as saying that Qwest field wasn't just for football. Does this mean that Seattle will not pursue a Soccer Specific Stadium? I believe it does. I think that idea SUCKS. I don't want to see another team come into MLS that is going to make a permanent bed out of a cavernous stadium. You'd think that the league would have learned its lesson by now. Anyone out there in the Pacific NorthWest have anything to say about a SSS? I certainly hope I'm wrong on this one.


  2. cpevans31

    cpevans31 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Huntersville, NC

    I've seen some pictures of Qwest Field on some of these boards and if they just use the bottom bowl for soccer it is probably the best non-SSS in the league. I've also read here that it is in a great location and rent would be pretty cheap
  3. nsamsarmy

    nsamsarmy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Even if it is cheap rent, the ancillary revenues I'm betting won't come to Seattle MLS. I'm not saying I have anything against the stadium. It's beautiful, and it is not a terrible place to watch a soccer game. From a financial standpoint though, I'm pretty sure it would be a rough move. Look at Arrowhead and Gillette. The owners of the Wizards/Revs OWN the freaking stadiums and they're still losing money. I seriously hope MLS isn't moving into another city where there is no hope of a SSS.
  4. soupcan

    soupcan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    Dont look at Arrowhead.

    Look at the A-League Sounders.

    A team with a budget that is a fraction of what an MLS team has is playing there right now. Dare I say that if it is working for the A-League team it will work well for MLS.

    First and Goal (stadium operators) have been very cooperative with the many events held at the stadium. They have hosted day long tournaments for local soccer leagues, lacrosse exhibitions, and two days ago Sounder's kids day.

    If Quest field was such a potentioanl hinderance these events would not be taking place.

    Also, the way the stadium is built the upper bowl feels more like a roof than a large section of unoccupied seats.

    It beats the hell out of Spartan any day.


  5. nsamsarmy

    nsamsarmy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Well, if that's what MLS goes for so be it. I'd hope that one day Seattle MLS would have its own place so that they could schedule their games whenever they well please January through December without gridlines. Hopefully financially it won't be a bad thing then, but I'd still prefer every team in the league to have their own place to play. Is Hanauer's pocket deep? I hope so. I will say this though, if there is another 2 markets with a willing owner/investor, and SSS plans then they should get it if Seattle can't equal the bids.
  6. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Good call. Spurn the top-ranked non MLS soccer watching market in the country! Punish them for building a beautiful soccer-friendly stadium that has 4 locker rooms (2 NFL, 2 MLS) and other extras specific to soccer.

    No, Seattle has no SSS plans. YES...the league wants us in anyway. Why do you suppose? Perhaps Garber is suicidal?

    Don't make me pull out the pretty pictures again!
  7. nsamsarmy

    nsamsarmy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I guess the picture will be pretty, but show that picture with about 8,000 people in the stands on a Wednesday night in June. Look, I'm not saying that I don't think Seattle should not have a team. I'm just very reserved when it comes to Adrian Hanauer. I don't think his management style has been overly successful with the sounders, and I'm not sure it would be for Seattle MLS. Qwest isn't a horrible place. I've seen a Seahawks game there, it's awesome. I just think that every team in the league, IN THE LONG TERM, should plan on having a home of their own. What's so wrong with that?
  8. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    That's NOT what you said...you said SSS or Seattle should be passed over. Well, how about establishing a team here, THEN building on its success to help rally for a SSS? Like, say...Columbus, LA, Dallas, MetroStars etc. did?

    Can't help myself....here come....the....pictures....


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  9. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Seattle v. LA Galaxy, August 2003. Attendance 7,500.
    (Only side of stadium used.)

    Here's what 7,500 in Qwest looks like:

    [​IMG]

    Notice the gridlines, also.

    Of course 3,750 or so on each side would look different, but not as bad as you might think, considering the lower bowl was designed as a SSS, pushed toward the field, unlike most NFL stadia, who didn't get approval and cash to complete themselves because SOCCER people rallied to make the stadium work, as was the case in Seattle.

    I agree with you on Hanauer, though.
  10. WJMarx

    WJMarx BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    I am all for Seattle gaining entrance to MLS, however, showing a picture of the stadium with only portions of 6 sections visible and claiming that it is how the stadium looks with only 7500 fans in place is chicanery at best.
  11. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
  12. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    This is perhaps the "fairest" pic of Qwest as it would look for MLS, with 17,000 fans attending the hastily scheduled USA-Venezuela match in 2003. Of course there would be turf, not grass:

    [​IMG]

    I was taking pictures of the action, NOT the second deck. Go figure.

    (Both sides of stadium were open for this match, so I suppose we see about 8,500 people in the shot.)
  13. uclacarlos

    uclacarlos Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    east coast
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Country:
    Spain
    I guess what the league is saying is that it's a little more important to add teams than it is to have the SSS in place.

    What municipality/IO would invest $25-150 million dollars w/o the assurance of a team? I think it's far-fetched to expect that. Even that OK university alloted the funds for an SSS, but w/o an IO, the bid went/is going nowhere.

    It seems that the groups being courted right now have serious intentions to build an SSS, as they appear intent on making $$.

    hey, and Sounderfan, you should consider posting more pictures. I don't think the word's gotten out that Seattle has new stadia. ;)
  14. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    I'll get right on that!
  15. nsamsarmy

    nsamsarmy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Well, that's fine. Let them build it now IF they have intentions on placing the team somewhere else later, but I'm not so sure that's Hanauer's intent. 17,000 doesn't look all that bad, but I hope that Seattle averages that. I want MLS in Seattle. I just think that if 2 other markets step up to the plate that are ready to immediately pursue a SSS, then why not go with them? Financially, I think it would be more secure. However, I seriously doubt that there are 2 markets like that in the country. It's a shame that cities like Philly and Seattle don't have a team. I just really want anyone to own Seattle MLS other than Hanauer. Anyone know who his other partners are?

Share This Page