Based on the current situation...I DOUBT Seattle will get a team.

[Sempuukyaku]

This really sucks because I would love to have MLS up in Seattle, but unless you guys have a stadium plan up there it's just not gonna happen. Look at what's goin on in SJ and KC. MLS is just straight up sending a message that unless you have a stadium plan or the investor owns the team AND the stadium and as a result gets a sweet deal (New England), you're not gonna get a team.

Unless Seattle can get a stronger investment group that has plans in the very near future for an SSS as well...it aint happenin.


I think now would be a good time to see if Portland can step up for an MLS franchise.

[sounderfan]

This really sucks because I would love to have MLS up in Seattle, but unless you guys have a stadium plan up there it's just not gonna happen. Look at what's goin on in SJ and KC. MLS is just straight up sending a message that unless you have a stadium plan or the investor owns the team AND the stadium and as a result gets a sweet deal (New England), you're not gonna get a team.

Unless Seattle can get a stronger investment group that has plans in the very near future for an SSS as well...it aint happenin.


I think now would be a good time to see if Portland can step up for an MLS franchise.

They need an owner for their A-League team first.

[sounderfan]

This really sucks because I would love to have MLS up in Seattle, but unless you guys have a stadium plan up there it's just not gonna happen.

This is over reacting to the KC thing. To wit, as late as August 2004:


"We have no plans for an SSS"---Hanauer
"Seattle is at the very top of our list"---Garber

[Sempuukyaku]

This is over reacting to the KC thing. To wit, as late as August 2004:


"We have no plans for an SSS"---Hanauer
"Seattle is at the very top of our list"---Garber


I don't see how that is overreacting, there was NO indication whatsoever that KC was up for sale and could possibly be moving until just now. And that still doesn't explain the whole deal with San Jose either. With cities in the running like Toronto, Rochester, and San Antonio who either are building stadiums already or have plans to get one going (San Antonio), I don't see what Seattle has to bring to the table to compete with that. Hell even OKC and Cleveland have stadium plans regarding MLS.

Posting multiple pictures again of Qwest field really won't cut it this time. Seattle has nothing to offer if they can't get an SSS plan going. If Paul Allen were running the MLS team then it would probably be a situation like NE, which isn't too bad. But since he won't be, it's a moot point.

[sounderfan]

If Paul Allen were running the MLS team then it would probably be a situation like NE, which isn't too bad. But since he won't be, it's a moot point.

The KC story is about Lamar Hunt not getting help with his stadium funding. Period.

Have you missed the literally DOZENS of posts about how Qwest Field will be sharing parking/concession profits with the MLS club and substantially lowering rent?

from soccer365.com in May, 2004...

365: Anytime you mention a potential owner and a need for money in Seattle, the name Paul Allen (Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers owner) pops into people’s minds. What are the chances of him or his company, 1st and Goal, getting involved?

AH: I think the chances of Paul Allen being an investor in the team are slim to none. Where Paul Allen and the Seahawks will be an investor in the team is that they will be a partner of ours in the stadium. They are willing to basically create a scenario where we can have some success, whether that’s lower rent or sharing concessions and parking. I think there is no cash that they’re going to want to put in, but they want to see it here. They’d love to have the stadium filled for more dates and they’re willing to do it by not making a lot of money, which is a big commitment. So, there are dozens of people in town who have gazillions of dollars and everybody always says “well what about that person”. It just turns out, there aren’t that many people with gazillions of dollars who are passionate about soccer.

http://www.soccer365.com/_365_Interviews/page_123_73940.shtml

[sounderfan]

More from the same interview...

There aren’t any solid plans, we’ve had discussions with various communities off and on over the past few years. Depending on how it’s works in Seahawk Stadium, whether successfully or unsuccessfully frankly, I think that we would always leave open the possibility of putting a soccer only facility together. We need to keep all our options open, and the Seahawks know that that’s certainly a possibility and who knows, maybe they’d end up as a partner of ours down the line in another facility. I think the important thing for us is that we believe that this (Seahawk Stadium) is a good facility for soccer. Is it optimal? Probably not, but it’s very good. We can tarp off the upper tier and create a nice 30,000 seat stadium. Site lines are good, facilities are great and it is the best location possible because if we build a soccer only stadium someday, it’s not going to be in downtown Seattle probably. It’s going to be 20 minutes or a half an hour out of town and there’s definitely some value to having your stadium be central. Certainly we lose a little bit of intimacy, but you make up for it by being in the middle of the city.


Look, no pictures! ;)

[sounderfan]

In this thread MLS is cited as working with the Sounders to get INTO Qwest Field...

When Cleveland fell through, the league began to work almost frantically with the A-League Seattle Sounders' general manager Adrian Hanauer to put together an investor group to bring MLS to the Pacific Northwest. They are close, but MLS sources say the complexity of putting together an ownership group which includes the National Football League's Seattle Seahawks and make Seahawks Stadium available is too great to get done for 2005. So if Seattle is to join MLS, it appears it would be 2006, at the earliest.

http://www.soccertimes.com/mls/2004/jun27.htm

Of course it is only called "Qwest Field" because the Anschutz-owned Qwest paid 25 Million for naming rights.

[sounderfan]

As late as 2003 Qwest Field DID appear to be a "stumbling block" for MLS/Seattle, as this article states. Interesting that when MLS needed a team quickly to replace Cleveland suddenly Qwest Field was acceptible! :rolleyes:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/othersports/133713_sbar05.html

2004 expansion negotiations included MLS HELPING the Sounders in negotiations to get into Qwest. Whether MLS did this with the idea Seattle would not be in the large facility long-term is unknown.

[sounderfan]

Seattle
Since MLS was formed, the league always thought it should have a team in Seattle. The problems have been finding a local ownership group and a place to play. For years, MLS arduously courted Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen, who owns the National Football League's Seattle Seahawks, but Allen so far just doesn't seem to want to get involved in soccer. MLS's single-entity structure might be a major objection of Allen.

In 2003, MLS chief operating officer Mark Abbott, the point man on expansion, started working with the A-League Seattle Sounders general manager Adrian Hanauer in an attempt to get a bid off the ground. At the time, Hanauer and his partners said they were not really interested in becoming MLS owners, unless the plan included building a new soccer stadium, possibly at the site of the old Midway Landfill. The site was being studied by the Sounders for a $20-25 million for a 7,000-seat stadium, expandable to MLS requirements with an indoor\outdoor training complex.

Now things have changed. Hanauer no longer believes that a soccer-specific stadium is central to a successful MLS franchise and that Seahawks Stadium might do fine, in part because it would bring the Seahawks ownership group back into the picture.

"I'm actively trying to figure out a way to bring Major League Soccer to Seattle," Hanauer recently told the Tacoma News Tribune. "It will be a fantastic market for Major League Soccer. I believe Major League Soccer will be here some day soon. MLS wants to be here." "(The Seahawks) would like to see (Seahawks Stadium) used for Major League Soccer," Hanauer continued. "The challenge is that it's still a difficult business model and we need to assemble an ownership group. The Sounders' ownership group is certainly interested in being partial owners of an MLS franchise -- whether that is a quarter, a third, a half -- and we need to find other partners. I'm actively out there looking for those partners. That really is the one major barrier to bringing an MLS franchise here. We have the facility, we have the infrastructure to run the franchise, and we have the fans."

May 16, 2004
http://www.soccertimes.com/mls/2004/may16.htm

[sounderfan]

A quote from Don Garber (July 14, 2004) referencing then "Seahawks Stadium" (Now Qwest Field):

"It doesn't take away anything from the Hanauer family or our belief in the market. They are certainly at the top of the list. We've had lots of discussions in the last couple of weeks after we finalized our decision with Dave (Checketts) and I'm very excited about the opportunity there. It's a strong soccer market with a great history of success both at the A-League, college level and women's sports level. It's a great sports town. We also like to think of Seattle as the gateway to Asia and we've had a lot of interest from teams in Korea and Japan to get more involved with Major League Soccer. Adrian (Hanauer) has had great discussions with the Seahawks and as you know this League was very instrumental in helping to push the vote for the approval of funding for Seattle Seahawks Stadium. There are many things there (in Seattle) that have us encouraged."

From Expansion press conference:
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20040714&content_id=8299&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp


I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that while we can debate the long-term success rate of an MLS franchise in a large stadium, it is clear MLS wants Seattle at some point and is willing to grant a franchise here in Qwest
Field.

[sounderfan]

http://www.brianduhon.com/2002-07-28/pict073.jpg

:D

Sounders-Whitecaps, 2002.

[uclacarlos]

I don't see how that is overreacting, there was NO indication whatsoever that KC was up for sale and could possibly be moving until just now.
Not true. There were pesky rumors all summer about a move to Rochester. At the time, these rumors were deemed as blatant examples of ig'nant, unprofessional journalists, at least by the cognosenti of BS.

[Geoduck]

As we in Seattle have learned, just because you're seeing lots of news & discussion from other cities doesn't mean anything will come of it. More examples:

Pre-MLS
Seatac Goal: Soccer Stadium -- `I Think We Could Draw 20,000 Fans, ' Says Coach (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2097831&date=19950105&query=sounders+coluccio) (Jan. 5, 1995 Seattle Times - use www.bugmenot.com)
A vacant lot between SeaTac and Kent may become home to a $20 million, 20,000-seat soccer stadium, according to business leaders.

Post-stadium referendum/MLS promise, pre-Garber
WSYSA Executive Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - July 9, 1999 (http://www.wsysa.com/records/documents/990709EXBODMINUTES_1.pdf) (PDF)
Neil Farnsworth (Sounders) is interested in working with WSYSA to develop an office and grass field stadium (5000 seat) complex in the south end in which we would be co-owners of the building complex. Ron is having preliminary discussions. Sounders plan on continuing on being an “A” League team even if and when an MLS Team comes to Seattle.

Ask yourself, if the league's SSS model for growth is gathering so much momentum, why did MLS have to bring Chivas in? What previously publicized expansion model did that meet? The league had to scramble just to get 1 of the 2 new teams that met its vision, and even SLC's stadium is in doubt if it has to rely on public funding.

[swedcrip34]

As we in Seattle have learned, just because you're seeing lots of news & discussion from other cities doesn't mean anything will come of it. More examples:

Pre-MLS
Seatac Goal: Soccer Stadium -- `I Think We Could Draw 20,000 Fans, ' Says Coach (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2097831&date=19950105&query=sounders+coluccio) (Jan. 5, 1995 Seattle Times - use www.bugmenot.com)
A vacant lot between SeaTac and Kent may become home to a $20 million, 20,000-seat soccer stadium, according to business leaders.

Post-stadium referendum/MLS promise, pre-Garber
WSYSA Executive Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - July 9, 1999 (http://www.wsysa.com/records/documents/990709EXBODMINUTES_1.pdf) (PDF)
Neil Farnsworth (Sounders) is interested in working with WSYSA to develop an office and grass field stadium (5000 seat) complex in the south end in which we would be co-owners of the building complex. Ron is having preliminary discussions. Sounders plan on continuing on being an “A” League team even if and when an MLS Team comes to Seattle.

Ask yourself, if the league's SSS model for growth is gathering so much momentum, why did MLS have to bring Chivas in? What previously publicized expansion model did that meet? The league had to scramble just to get 1 of the 2 new teams that met its vision, and even SLC's stadium is in doubt if it has to rely on public funding.

Chivas is playing in a SSS. Made AEG an extra 15 million to share the market. Makes HDC more profitable now. LA is a big enough market to have 2 teams.

[sounderfan]

Chivas is playing in a SSS. Made AEG an extra 15 million to share the market. Makes HDC more profitable now. LA is a big enough market to have 2 teams.

And Seattle is too big a market in NOT have ONE, yet. :)

[swedcrip34]

And Seattle is too big a market in NOT have ONE, yet. :)

I agree (and then I'd be living in Seattle too!), but Detroit, Philly, and Houston are larger markets IIRC and I think MLS would be wise to only expand with a plan for a SSS (as they did with both Chivas, SLC and are forcing on KC, SJ, and are pushing along for MET, DC). The only team without a SSS in 2007 will hopefully be NE (MLS owner privately owned new NFL stadium). That's optomistic, but where the league needs to go to become profitable. I know MLS might could get a great lease at QWEST and Qwest is an Anschutz company. I just would hope Seattle could come up with a long-term SSS plan.

[Geoduck]

Chivas is playing in a SSS. Made AEG an extra 15 million to share the market. Makes HDC more profitable now. LA is a big enough market to have 2 teams.And makes MLS investor Jorge Vergara less profitable. If LA is really big enough for 2 teams, why did AEG feel the need to demand an additional fee? Maybe because they think the Chivas venture might hurt the Galaxy, or that it might end in dismal failure? Besides, I thought (under's MLS's plan) an SSS would give scheduling flexibility and other revenue streams to the team's operator; I don't think either is happening here. Are we going to see Chivas complaining about its lease in a few years, like so many other MLS teams? To me, this is less about MLS's business model and more about an older, more general business model - bleed a sucker for all his worth.

As for Seattle, there's been plenty of news about various stadium plans, so I don't think you can blame Sounders ownership for their effort. (You could fault them - and MLS - for their competence, though.)

[swedcrip34]

And makes MLS investor Jorge Vergara less profitable. If LA is really big enough for 2 teams, why did AEG feel the need to demand an additional fee? Maybe because they think the Chivas venture might hurt the Galaxy, or that it might end in dismal failure? Besides, I thought (under's MLS's plan) an SSS would give scheduling flexibility and other revenue streams to the team's operator; I don't think either is happening here. Are we going to see Chivas complaining about its lease in a few years, like so many other MLS teams? To me, this is less about MLS's business model and more about an older, more general business model - bleed a sucker for all his worth.

As for Seattle, there's been plenty of news about various stadium plans, so I don't think you can blame Sounders ownership for their effort. (You could fault them - and MLS - for their competence, though.)

cause they could get the 15 million?

cause Anschutz wasn't going to hand over the LA market for nothing

I get your point, but Vergara has very deep pockets that haven't bled for MLS for years like the others. So even if he loses some money, if all other MLS teams are profitable, that's what matters to prospective investors in future expansion teams.

the problem in Seattle is that for the last year or so there has been a consensus that "no SSS" will be the plan and Qwest will be fine for some time. There's been very little talk of SSS the last year. Statements from Hanauer indicate he's fine with Qwest. Maybe they can get a good lease and Anschutz (owning 5/12 teams) will push for their inclusion since he has an interest in Qwest. But I'm leaning toward the opinion that MLS will decide SSS's will be mandatory for all future expansion teams. Just cause of the drag on the other owners involved in sharing losses. And wouldn't having 11/12 teams in SSS look good on TV, create atmosphere in EVERY MLS market (but NE), and cause story after story of MLS filling 90% of seats league wide, etc. Maybe Club America can buy their way into a Houston team without a SSS, but I'd expect the financial side of things structured to fall more of the losses on them than the others in single-entity.

I agree that if a billionaire (especially foreign) steps up and offers himself to be "bled", MLS will oblige. Otherwise, I'd expect MLS to be less and less likely to accept a NFL stadium as a long-term expansion plan. But if there is any exception, Seattle might be it.

[pc4th]

And makes MLS investor Jorge Vergara less profitable. If LA is really big enough for 2 teams, why did AEG feel the need to demand an additional fee? Maybe because they think the Chivas venture might hurt the Galaxy, or that it might end in dismal failure? Besides, I thought (under's MLS's plan) an SSS would give scheduling flexibility and other revenue streams to the team's operator; I don't think either is happening here. Are we going to see Chivas complaining about its lease in a few years, like so many other MLS teams? To me, this is less about MLS's business model and more about an older, more general business model - bleed a sucker for all his worth.

As for Seattle, there's been plenty of news about various stadium plans, so I don't think you can blame Sounders ownership for their effort. (You could fault them - and MLS - for their competence, though.)

Anschutz bought the Galaxy for $25 million, he's not going to hand over the LA market for free.

Chivas doesn't need its own controlled SSS to be successful. Do you know how many Chivas fans are in LA? A survey notes that they are as popular as the Lakers there, Dodgers being #1. As long as the stadium is good (it is) and the game is good (hopefully) fans will turn out. Vergera will benefit from merchandise, tickets revenue, some parking revenue and a TV deal.

Basically to sum up: In a regular market, there might be 100,000 fans for a team.

In LA, there are around 1,000,000 Chivas fans. If half of them follow Chivas USA in addition to Chivas in Mexico, Chivas USA will have the largest fansbase of any teams.



As for the Seattle situation, I think the best hope is for Allen to buy the team. If not, another owner with lot of money buy the expansion team, play in Qwest Field for a couple of year, and get a deal done with the surburb towns, like Kent, Renton...etc for a SSS similar to what Salt Lake is doing now.

[Geoduck]

Yeah, if I were Anschutz and MLS, I'd take the money from that fool, too. I just don't agree that the Chivas team is an example of the expansion model that the league has been pushing. The league gets points for Checketts/SLC, but there's never been a long list of investors with secured stadium deals queuing up for a team (there was even a chance that only one team would be added for 2005). Plus MLS has to figure out what to do with SJ and KC. So Adrian Hanauer probably isn't too worried right now.

I'm aware of Chivas's potential upside, but the immense local popularity of the Seattle Mariners hasn't done much for the attendance of the Tacoma Rainiers (its AAA affiliate 35 miles down the road). I don't think Chivas will be successful, but we'll have to wait and see. If you have a link describing Chivas's lease with AEG, let me know.