Should Seattle be allowed in even WITHOUT an SSS plan?

[sounderfan]

If a quality ownership group is announced for a Seattle bid and MLS decides the time for the NW market is "now..."

Should Seattle be accepted into the next expansion of MLS even if they don't have a long-term soccer-specific stadium plan?

[denver_mugwamp]

If a quality ownership group is announced for a Seattle bid and MLS decides the time for the NW market is "now..."

Should Seattle be accepted into the next expansion of MLS even if they don't have a long-term soccer-specific stadium plan?

My understanding was that an expansion team needed an acceptable stadium plan. Doesn't have to be a SSS. Could be a reasonable deal with a NFL stadium.

[sounderfan]

My understanding was that an expansion team needed an acceptable stadium plan. Doesn't have to be a SSS. Could be a reasonable deal with a NFL stadium.

Check out the field views MLS fans would have at Qwest Field in this interactive seating chart:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/sports/seahawks/stadium/seating/seating_chart.html

[Sachsen]

I voted on the "fine with it if ownership is strong" side.

Here's the deal. In a perfect world, one I hope we get to, every MLS team will have its very own soccer cathedral. I was at the Wizards-Galaxy game on the 16th, and as I walked around the Arrowhead concourses, I was thinking how nice it would be to go to a soccer game and not be confronted with all the Chiefs stuff. (No offense to Chiefs fans intended.)

Also, watching a soccer game with pointy-ball lines painted on the ground REALLY REALLY SUCKS. (Which we thankfully didn't have on the 16th, probably thanks to the WNT.)

It all depends on the lease they would get. You get a crummy lease like the Metros have at Giants Stadium, it drags the whole league down monetarily like an albatross around the neck. That's where the "strong ownership" piece of the puzzle becomes key.

I want Seattle in the league. I'd lay good money down that it would be a successful franchise and be well supported. Seahawks Stadium looks very nice, as far as NFL stadiums go. I still would want assurances from ownership that a SSS is in the plans and works, like Checketts is doing in SLC. I would be disinclined to support them coming in if a SSS wasn't even being CONSIDERED.

[IASocFan]

From the seating chart, it looks like the field is way too narrow for soccer. A football field is 33 yards wide; it looks like a 55 yard field would about as wide as the field goes. For soccer, it needs to be 70-75 yards wide!

[Sachsen]

From the seating chart, it looks like the field is way too narrow for soccer. A football field is 33 yards wide; it looks like a 55 yard field would about as wide as the field goes. For soccer, it needs to be 70-75 yards wide!

I don't know the dimensions or how they do it, but this isn't a problem. The Seattle Sounders play there, and that field has hosted Man U ChampionsWorld games. I'm sure sounderfan can chime in on this, but field width would not be an issue.

[SeattleFan]

According to First and Goal, the operators of the stadium, the soccer field dimensions are 70x110 yards.

http://www.firstandgoal.com/venoverview.aspx?content=211&SecID=28

[metros11]

The stadium was designed with soccer sightlines in mind, so the dimensions are not a problem. The issue at hand here should be whether the Seattle franchise can make (which means break even) money in this stadium, which depends on 3 things:

1. Lease
2. Parking and Concessions
3. Attendance

1. You have to ask, what is the lease going to be? Can the MLS team break even if they draw 10,000 fans?
2. Do they get a piece of the pie when it comes to parking charges and $6 beers? They bring in the fans, theoratically they should be getting something... shouldn't they?
3. Can they average at least 10,000 on regular basis??? This is where I would be looking to see whether Seattle deserves a team or not. They currently average about 3K for Sounders games and this summers Champions World match drew about 25K fans. Hmmm, MLS will expect an average of 20,000 for at least the first year. I don't think its ever going to happen, much like MLS in Seattle is not going to happen...

[kevbrunton]

It has been my understanding that MLS has set out two criteria for a stadium -- a SSS or an NFL stadium controlled by the MLS investor.

Does Paul Allen own or control Qwest Field? If so, then under this criteria, he would be the only option for ownership of a Seattle MLS franchise with playing at Qwest Field as its long term plan.

So if the Sounders guy wants a team, he MUST have a SSS.

[Sempuukyaku]

If Real Salt Lake can come into MLS with a stadium plan and suburbs competing for a stadium before the team even takes the pitch.....then Seattle should be able to do it too.

NO EXCEPTIONS

[swedcrip34]

It has been my understanding that MLS has set out two criteria for a stadium -- a SSS or an NFL stadium controlled by the MLS investor.

Does Paul Allen own or control Qwest Field? If so, then under this criteria, he would be the only option for ownership of a Seattle MLS franchise with playing at Qwest Field as its long term plan.

So if the Sounders guy wants a team, he MUST have a SSS.

Wrong. Maybe your opinion (I'd agree) but not fact. If not for Checketts the Sounders would be in MLS next year in Qwest with any SSS far out in the future if even to be pushed for. I've heard that Allen has been giving soccer a favorable lease (used soccer in the campaign to get public funds).

If the Sounders are not going under using Qwest now, MLS should draw better and do ok if they get the same lease deal.

I'm suspicious that the "Qwest" naming deal is part of a broader understanding about brining in a MLS team. Anschutz owns much of Qwest. AEG CEO Tim Leiweke has a brother Tod Leiweke who I think is Seahawks CEO.

MLS wants in Seattle. If Hanauer will operate the team and no other city comes around with a SLC type deal (owner & promised SSS), Seattle will be the next team in. Likely in Qwest. I'd like a SSS too but that's not the way it is now.

[ElJefe]

If Real Salt Lake can come into MLS with a stadium plan and suburbs competing for a stadium before the team even takes the pitch.....then Seattle should be able to do it too.

NO EXCEPTIONS
I'll be sure to pass the memo on to the MLS ownership group. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I've been to Arrowhead a few times and I like it. It's a good stadium. It's got good sightlines, even for soccer, good amenities, and the design of the stadium helps hold noise in. Considering that it was built in 1971 or 1972, it was quite ahead of its time. About the only criticism that I have of it is in the area of field maintenance. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but because it was designed for Astroturf and retrofitted for grass, it doesn't have the same drainage and undersoil heating that a lot of the newer stadiums do. But really, this is only an issue for late-season Chiefs games and early-season Wizards games.

If the Wizards never got their own place and continued playing at Arrowhead for the forseeable future, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Anyway, I have precisely zero objections to a Seattle MLS team playing at Qwest Field provided that all the financials are suitable. Yeah, it's a big NFL stadium, but my attitude is that if a team can be almost as financially viable playing at a big NFL stadium as they would be at their own stadium which would cost $60-70 million, then that's fine. I'm certainly not someone who thinks nothing of spending $60-70 million of other people's money, just to satisfy my own personal sense of aethstetics.

And to say that the people of Seattle must do something, just because the people of Salt Lake have done something is, well, dumb. Different horses for different courses. In other words, MLS must choose a path in each market that is unique to each market.

[sounderfan]

Note:

The A-League Sounders current "lease" with Qwest Field is about as kind as you can get. The Sounders said upon signing through 2007 that the Stadium "Really wants us there." Must be true, as front office sources have let leak that the Sounders are using the stadium RENT FREE, paying only for match-day staff and related operating expenses.

That would likely make Qwest Field LESS expensive than the Sounders motley previous home, Memorial Stadium, near Seattle's Space Needle:

http://soundercentral.com/museum/2001updates/SeattleMemorialStadium.jpg

Paul Allen has let pro soccer "dangle" in Seattle...but this at least is a supportive gesture...

[Bonji]

Check out the field views MLS fans would have at Qwest Field in this interactive seating chart:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/sports/seahawks/stadium/seating/seating_chart.html
That is really cool. How'd you like the be the stooge who got sent to every section to take pictures?

[scaryice]

Here's the deal. In a perfect world, one I hope we get to, every MLS team will have its very own soccer cathedral.

That perfect world is becoming a reality. Five years from now, we'll be almost there, so there's no excuse to let in teams without a good stadium plan.

Next year, four teams will play in a SSS. (CLB, LA, DAL, CHV)

Besides KC & NE, every other team has a plan in place, or is in intense negotiations.

[ElJefe]

It's worth noting that SSS are not nearly as important as good ownership.

The Miami Fusion had a SSS (more or less), but because they had crummy ownership and management, they are no longer with us. On the other hand, four teams that started in huge stadiums (CLB, LA, DAL, CHI), but had competent ownership and/or management are either in their own SSS now or definitely have them on their way.

If a Seattle MLS team has competent ownership and competent management and play at Qwest Field, they will be with us for the long haul and stand a good chance of getting their own SSS down the road. If they have boobs running the team, the nicest SSS in the world won't save them.

[Sempuukyaku]

I'll be sure to pass the memo on to the MLS ownership group. :rolleyes:

You do that.

Oh, and by the way, make sure you pass that memo along to Dave Checketts, Detroit MLS, and San Antonio, TX as well :rolleyes:



Do we want MLS to be a profitable league with clubs in stadiums were revenues are completely under our control? Or do you want another Metros situation where there are gridiron lines all over the field, next to no say in scheduling, no control over revenues (except ticket sales), and paying rent to play per match??


Oh, and I think it's EXTREMELY NAIVE to think that Paul Allen won't charge the Sounders rent if they move up to MLS. As an MLS team Seattle aint gonna be averaging 3000 a match anymore.

[Sempuukyaku]

It's worth noting that SSS are not nearly as important as good ownership.

The Miami Fusion had a SSS (more or less), but because they had crummy ownership and management, they are no longer with us. On the other hand, four teams that started in huge stadiums (CLB, LA, DAL, CHI), but had competent ownership and/or management are either in their own SSS now or definitely have them on their way.

If a Seattle MLS team has competent ownership and competent management and play at Qwest Field, they will be with us for the long haul and stand a good chance of getting their own SSS down the road. If they have boobs running the team, the nicest SSS in the world won't save them.


That wasn't an SSS...that was a rundown high school stadium "converted" for soccer...that's it.

I'll agree with you on the incompetent ownership, but to say that having good ownership is BETTER than an SSS is off the mark. Great ownership isn't going to make up for lack of scheduling freedom, high least costs, gridiron lines, and no revenue from anything except ticket sales.

Hell...get a brand spanking new I/O for Miami who's the biggest soccer fan on the planet and is devoted to MLS...and put their team into the Orange Bowl, where the city of Miami was asking for about the same amount of rent that Metrostars pay for Giants Stadium....


Is that team gonna last long without their own stadium where they can control their own revenues and even rent the place out to others???

Don't think so.

[Blackjack Shellac]

That wasn't an SSS...that was a rundown high school stadium "converted" for soccer...that's it.

I'll agree with you on the incompetent ownership, but to say that having good ownership is BETTER than an SSS is off the mark. Great ownership isn't going to make up for lack of scheduling freedom, high least costs, gridiron lines, and no revenue from anything except ticket sales.

Hell...get a brand spanking new I/O for Miami who's the biggest soccer fan on the planet and is devoted to MLS...and put their team into the Orange Bowl, where the city of Miami was asking for about the same amount of rent that Metrostars pay for Giants Stadium....


Is that team gonna last long without their own stadium where they can control their own revenues and even rent the place out to others???

Don't think so.

As a former Fusion fan I agree 110%.

[swedcrip34]

Allen wouldn't cross Anschutz. They'd negotiate the lease before expanding. Anschutz is paying for the naming rights and Leiweke's brother is Seahawks CEO. You can't get more incestuous (yeah I said that). I don't think Allen would mind giving MLS the same deal as the A-League. Most owners maybe, but he'd be happy to have a MLS team and doesn't need the money. The logic doesn't add up that just cause it's A-League now he'd have to raise (start charging) rent. What's the difference to him, nothing but getting a MLS team and not getting POTENTIAL increased revenue. I see him forgoing the increased revenue to get a MLS team. Don't think I'm naive. But everyone gets their opinion here.