The SSS Issue

[skyscraper]

It is unfair of MLS to make it a requirement for expansion teams to have an sss in their plans in order to qualify for inclusion in the league. When the league first started, we did not get a team because the standard was that you had to have a stadium with a natural grass surface, and all we had at the time was the vet. Now we have the linc, and they move the goal line on us (pun intended) and say that a potential owner needs at least a plan for an sss in order to be considered.
It's not as though they are threatening existing teams with relocation if they don't build stadiums. DC United is probably not going to build a new stadium in the foreseeable future, but no one is threatening to move them. Same with New England. And who knows what is happening in the swamplands of joisey.
All teams should be held to the same standard. If they are going to make it a requirement for new teams to have a new stadium, they should make it a requirement for existing teams also. Set a definitive timeline, as they do with expansion, and if the existing teams don't meet that deadline, the team gets moved. Either that or stop insisting that expansion markets build a stadium. We now have a perfectly good stadium for soccer, thanks to the taxpayers of the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, and the Eagles. We are the fourth largest media market in the country, but we have no team in part because potential investors could be scared off by this stadium issue (it's not the only reason, but part of it.) Isn't it more important to have a team in a viable market than to worry about what it looks like on tv (which is the only rationale I have heard for this requirement.) Remember, the New York Giants baseball team (and the Mets in their first 2 years) played at the Polo Grounds, a stadium originally built for polo: that is, horses. It was never configured right for baseball, it was way too oblong. No one cared. It wasn't ideal, but they made it work because it was the only available stadium and no one could afford to build a new one. The Giants played there for decades. Willie McCovey made his famous over the shoulder catch there. THAT is what people remember, not whether the stadium was perfect.
None of this is to say that a potential owner couldn't help his cause by building an sss. Certainly that would sweeten the pot. But it shouldn't be a requirement.

[Fuegofan]

The short answer is that the current owners of MLS set the rules. Fairness doesn't necessarily fit into the equation.

When the league first started, we did not get a team because the standard was that you had to have a stadium with a natural grass surface, and all we had at the time was the vet. Now we have the linc, and they move the goal line on us (pun intended) and say that a potential owner needs at least a plan for an sss in order to be considered.

Standards change. Business models change. Lamar Hunt's comments at the recent "Wizards for sale" press conference illustrate this well.

It's not as though they are threatening existing teams with relocation if they don't build stadiums. DC United is probably not going to build a new stadium in the foreseeable future.

Actually, they will hopefully build a stadium in the forseeable future. They have a site picked out--Poplar Point on the Anacostia River. Now they just have to wade through D.C. politics. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them in their own stadium in 2008. (BTW, you mention building a new stadium. That's a given, isn't it? I mean, ever hear of building an old stadium? Suppose it could happen--like here in Chicago with new Soldier Field.)

Same with New England.

The Krafts own the stadium and the team. While I think all the other owners would agree that a smaller stadium would be ideal for the Revs, Krafts have a bit of seniority and aren't worried about controlling their revenue stream. They likely have carte blanche.

And who knows what is happening in the swamplands of joisey.

I'm sure there will be an important announcement to answer this question in 60-90 days.

All teams should be held to the same standard. If they are going to make it a requirement for new teams to have a new stadium, they should make it a requirement for existing teams also.

Why? Let's go through the list.
Columbus--SSS 1999
New E--Krafts own Gillette, which was built with soccer in mind.
Metros--Diligently working on making important announcements about important advancements in getting a SSS.
DC--In progress, with plan and location, but quiet about it.
Chicago--SSS 2006
Dallas--SSS 2005
KC--up for sale because the owner doesn't want to build a third SSS and realizes that it's necessary to truly be successful
Colorado--SSS 2007
Salt Lake--Promised to build a SSS (which may prove more challenging than they expected, but their GM has experience with getting an SSS started)
San Jose--Huge bone of contention for them. They say they need one, and may move without one.
Galaxy and Chivas--SSS 2003
So all teams are headed the way of the SSS except New E, which I already discussed. Satisfied?

Set a definitive timeline, as they do with expansion, and if the existing teams don't meet that deadline, the team gets moved.

Real life doesn't work that way very often. Politics are tough. Just ask the Metrostars.

Either that or stop insisting that expansion markets build a stadium. We now have a perfectly good stadium for soccer, thanks to the taxpayers of the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, and the Eagles. We are the fourth largest media market in the country, but we have no team in part because potential investors could be scared off by this stadium issue (it's not the only reason, but part of it.) Isn't it more important to have a team in a viable market than to worry about what it looks like on tv (which is the only rationale I have heard for this requirement.)

Aaahhh, you haven't been informed of all the reasons for the need for SSSs then. In brief,
1. Being in an SSS, you control your own dates, meaning that you don't get bumped for NFL football games, band competitions, or concerts. This means that you can play on the weekends, i.e. the most lucrative days of the week. Plus if you're in competitions like the Confederations Cup or (hopefully in the future) Libertadores Cup, then you can schedule the games during the week and not have to schedule around someone else. Big perks to being the primary tenant.

2. No 300 pound linemen tearing up your turf. 300 pounders put lots of divots in the turf. This makes it impossible for the round ball to travel smoothly. This results in awkward and unexpected bounces. This leads to bad soccer.

3. In an SSS you don't have to pay exhorbitant amounts of rent, you get the revenue streams from parking, concessions, boxes, admission,--in other words, you get all the money. The Meadowlands charges the Metrostars something like $100,000 per game. That's not the way to profitability. On the other hand, if you own the stadium (or lease it for something really cheap), you can get revenue not only from games, but also from booking concerts (note that Chicago, Columbus, and Dallas all have built in stages), which is actually potentially more profitable than the soccer end of things.

4. Finally, the fan experience is simply that much better. It's more intimate and louder. It brings the fans closer to the field. This makes the game more exciting for the fans and harder on opposing teams. It increases demand because the atmosphere is better. And, you can force fans to pony up for season tickets instead of just walking up to the gate. You can't scare many fans into the Linc selling out when it has 80,000 seats, but in a stadium with only 20,000 seats it's advisable to have season tickets.

Remember, the New York Giants baseball team (and the Mets in their first 2 years) played at the Polo Grounds, a stadium originally built for polo: that is, horses. It was never configured right for baseball, it was way too oblong. No one cared. It wasn't ideal, but they made it work because it was the only available stadium and no one could afford to build a new one. The Giants played there for decades. Willie McCovey made his famous over the shoulder catch there. THAT is what people remember, not whether the stadium was perfect.

True. And the Chicago Bears played at Wrigley until the 1960s. But things are different now, and the guys who control and have the money say SSSs are the business model to success.

None of this is to say that a potential owner couldn't help his cause by building an sss. Certainly that would sweeten the pot. But it shouldn't be a requirement.

See beginning.

Hope this helps to explain the situation.

[Fuegofan]

Oh, and another reason--sponsors for MLS are different than sponsors for NFL. MLS sponsors don't like fans (in person or on TV) looking at rival product sponsors just because we are the second tenant in someone else's stadium. I can tell you from experience here in Chicago that it can be a major issue.

[SC in SF]

The Giants played there for decades. Willie McCovey made his famous over the shoulder catch there.
That was Willie Mays.

[Kaiser]

The "Linc" is NOT, I say NOT suitable for a soccer tenant that would play an entire season there. It's too freakin' narrow. Man U. played there with a pitch narrower than 65 yards. It's OK for a travelling road show like championsworld but not a full time soccer team. A Philly phranchise could build an SSS in conjunction with one of it's many colleges like Uncle Phil did with the HDC and Cal State Dominguez. How about Drexel?

[skyscraper]

That was Willie Mays.
I KNEW that didn't sound right in my head. Mea culpa.

[skyscraper]

The "Linc" is NOT, I say NOT suitable for a soccer tenant that would play an entire season there. It's too freakin' narrow. Man U. played there with a pitch narrower than 65 yards. It's OK for a travelling road show like championsworld but not a full time soccer team. A Philly phranchise could build an SSS in conjunction with one of it's many colleges like Uncle Phil did with the HDC and Cal State Dominguez. How about Drexel?

How about Drexel? I got my architecture degree there, and I can tell you that there is no way that the soccer team would be able to fill a stadium. MLS is concerned about teams playing in NFL stadiums because they don't fill the seats in, right? Well the crowd for a Drexel soccer crowd would have the same issue in a 30,000 seat sss.

[Flyin Ryan]

double

[Flyin Ryan]

Well, why don't they do like they do for the Palestra and Big Five games and have it between all the Philly area colleges for their use as a soccer field: Villanova, Penn, La Salle, Temple, St. Joseph's, and the one outsider Drexel. They could have a college game as a preliminary to the pro game on special days.

[DaMunk]

First of all, Skyscraper, I feel your frustration and it is compounded by people who 'have' thumbing their noses at those of us who don't or by those who feel they have an inside track to what is going w/in the MLS braintrust simply b/c they read BS incesantly.

The short answer is that the current owners of MLS set the rules. Fairness doesn't necessarily fit into the equation.

Standards change. Business models change. Lamar Hunt's comments at the recent "Wizards for sale" press conference illustrate this well.
Agreed. The investors are just beginning to get a real sense of what each franchise needs to do in order to turn a profit. Their model has evolved from what they thought was a legitimate plan in '96 to the new concert venue/SSS model.


Actually, they will hopefully build a stadium in the forseeable future. They have a site picked out--Poplar Point on the Anacostia River. Now they just have to wade through D.C. politics. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them in their own stadium in 2008.
See the struggle the Nationals have had in getting their public financing. I honestly can not understand why MLS is attempting to put pressure on municipalities to finance concert venues which host soccer 20-25 dates a year. It is not like soccer is as woven into our cultural fabric as football or baseball. Nine years ago the league did not exist and as far as the majority of the population is concerned, still does not.


The Krafts own the stadium and the team. While I think all the other owners would agree that a smaller stadium would be ideal for the Revs, Krafts have a bit of seniority and aren't worried about controlling their revenue stream. They likely have carte blanche.
And they are pissing away their fan base. They only thing the Kraft's have going for them is that they got in on the ground floor. Gillettte may have been built with soccer in mind, but so was the Linc. As a matter of fact, part of the deal between Lurie and the city was that the Linc be used for soccer. Some may argue that Lurie has fulfilled his end by hosting the Champions World series http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif.


I'm sure there will be an important announcement to answer this question in 60-90 days.
The irony about the Metrostars situation is while MLS is trying to bully local gov'ts to fund SSSs, Harrison was ready to deal until the state gov't stepped in and is now trying to dictate where the Metrostars will play.


Aaahhh, you haven't been informed of all the reasons for the need for SSSs then. In brief,
1. Being in an SSS, you control your own dates, meaning that you don't get bumped for NFL football games, band competitions, or concerts. This means that you can play on the weekends, i.e. the most lucrative days of the week. Plus if you're in competitions like the Confederations Cup or (hopefully in the future) Libertadores Cup, then you can schedule the games during the week and not have to schedule around someone else. Big perks to being the primary tenant.
All legit reasons.


2. No 300 pound linemen tearing up your turf. 300 pounders put lots of divots in the turf. This makes it impossible for the round ball to travel smoothly. This results in awkward and unexpected bounces. This leads to bad soccer.
Is it the best situation? No, but they have found a way to make it work for 9 years in New England, Chicago, Kansas and San Jose. I'd also like to point out that some EPL teams share their grounds with rugby clubs.


3. In an SSS you don't have to pay exhorbitant amounts of rent, you get the revenue streams from parking, concessions, boxes, admission,--in other words, you get all the money. The Meadowlands charges the Metrostars something like $100,000 per game. That's not the way to profitability. On the other hand, if you own the stadium (or lease it for something really cheap), you can get revenue not only from games, but also from booking concerts (note that Chicago, Columbus, and Dallas all have built in stages), which is actually potentially more profitable than the soccer end of things.
There is some truth to what you state here. Your first sentence should be "In an SSS MLS owns..." While Uncle Phil has been a wonderful benefactor of soccer, do not be fooled. AEG is also one of the biggest concert promoters in the country. And what of the field conditions after 10,000 people have stood on the pitch during the Dave Matthews concert?


4. Finally, the fan experience is simply that much better. It's more intimate and louder. It brings the fans closer to the field. This makes the game more exciting for the fans and harder on opposing teams. It increases demand because the atmosphere is better. And, you can force fans to pony up for season tickets instead of just walking up to the gate. You can't scare many fans into the Linc selling out when it has 80,000 seats, but in a stadium with only 20,000 seats it's advisable to have season tickets.
I hope you have been to the Linc before stating anything about the atmosphere. I was there when it was sold out the first time Champions World came to town and I have been there with only 15K for a Temple football game. Honestly, I had a better 'fan' experience with only 15K in the lower bowl due much to the fact that the sightlines and proximity to the field from all the seats in the lower level are truly awe-some. Close off the upper level and you have a great 25K seat facility.

I understand the need to control dates and alternate revenue streams definitely help the bottom line. I would bet that if Lurie handed a check to Don Garber tomorrow, we would be celebrating the addition of yet another team and this thread (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157154) would be meaningful. You can buy into all the MLS PR all you want, but it comes down to money and, more specifically, who is willing to pump money into their venture.

[billf]

The "Linc" is NOT, I say NOT suitable for a soccer tenant that would play an entire season there. It's too freakin' narrow. Man U. played there with a pitch narrower than 65 yards. It's OK for a travelling road show like championsworld but not a full time soccer team. A Philly phranchise could build an SSS in conjunction with one of it's many colleges like Uncle Phil did with the HDC and Cal State Dominguez. How about Drexel?


The field is 68 yards dude and could be a little wider. Look at the field again. It's 11 yard to the hash mark from the coner flag. then one to the penalty area from the hash for 12 yards. On each side that's 24 yards total. The penalty area is 44 yards. Together, that's 68 yards. That's a little wider than what has been configured in KC. A stadium in Philly would have be accessible. University City is not a place 17,000 people can get to easily. This is a city where land and campuses aren't sitting massive plots of open land.

[uclacarlos]

I haven't been to the Linc, but having flown over it, goddamn that thing is beautiful but WAY too big for footie. Sorry. At least Seahawk Stadium in Seattle makes the upper deck inconsequential, and hence more of an aesthetically pleasing match for the 18-22K there. The Link doesn't seem to be able to do so...

Just my two pesos...

[Adam Zebrowski]

If you just take the LOWER bowl at the Linc and consider that the MLS only portion of the Linc, then you have a passable venue.

Billf has it right with the 68 yards in width, and there is room to extent the width to 72 or 73 yards.

I highly doubt a soccer specific stadium comes into existence, barring an abnormal extinction of the nhl, where snider decides to move into mls and build it himself.

Lurie prefers mls to be a tenant, and as each year passes, the business man in him over rules the soccer fan in him.

While I'm hoping to see mls here, I don't think it will, at least, not in the 4-5 years ahead.

[DaMunk]

I understand the need to control dates and alternate revenue streams definitely help the bottom line. I would bet that if Lurie handed a check to Don Garber tomorrow, we would be celebrating the addition of yet another team and this thread (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157154) would be meaningful. You can buy into all the MLS PR all you want, but it comes down to money and, more specifically, who is willing to pump money into their venture.

Oh, and the Sounders, an A-League - excuse me, USL Division 1 - team has a deal at Seahawk Stadium that apparently is financially viable. A Second Disvision team can afford to pay rent in a state-of-the-art NFL stadium with an average attendance of 2,874. Surely an MLS team with an attendance 3 times that (which is less than Dallas' average attendance) could find a way. Granted, I do not know the details of their deal, but whatever it is, I am sure it is profitable for Paul Allen.

[swedcrip34]

Oh, and the Sounders, an A-League - excuse me, USL Division 1 - team has a deal at Seahawk Stadium that apparently is financially viable. A Second Disvision team can afford to pay rent in a state-of-the-art NFL stadium with an average attendance of 2,874. Surely an MLS team with an attendance 3 times that (which is less than Dallas' average attendance) could find a way. Granted, I do not know the details of their deal, but whatever it is, I am sure it is profitable for Paul Allen.

maybe they COULD find a way, but why bother if some other city will build a SSS. as stated, every team is on a path by about 2008 (hopefully) to have a SSS or be sold to an outside investor (SJ/KC to San Antonio, Houston, or Rochester). why should Philly be any different? Seattle might be a comparison (almost got a team in Qwest - read that again QWEST - Anchutz's company). That's all about "geographic footprint" (not team in pacific northwest. Philly offers a great market but is about 100 miles from Giants Stadium and 150 from DC. 2-3 years ago I think Philly was a top candidate regardless of a SSS. Now I think the SSS is vital (small possibility of a great lease deal & owner putting a team in Lincoln).

[Kryptonite]

It is unfair of MLS to make it a requirement for expansion teams to have an sss in their plans in order to qualify for inclusion in the league. When the league first started, we did not get a team because the standard was that you had to have a stadium with a natural grass surface, and all we had at the time was the vet. Now we have the linc, and they move the goal line on us (pun intended) and say that a potential owner needs at least a plan for an sss in order to be considered.

Having an SSS will bring the team (and league) money. This league can't afford to be paying high rent and getting very little in return.


It's not as though they are threatening existing teams with relocation if they don't build stadiums. DC United is probably not going to build a new stadium in the foreseeable future, but no one is threatening to move them. Same with New England. And who knows what is happening in the swamplands of joisey.

The Patriot's owner also owns Gillette Stadium and the New England Revolution. So you gotta think that the Revs probably are getting a bit of a sweet deal.

Both DC and Metro are actively looking at sites for stadiums. Metro already have a site in Harrison. They already had a date for groundbreaking, they just bumped it back.

I do think a team in Philadelphia would be a good thing.

[Looper121]

I do think a team in Philadelphia would be a good thing.

As one Crew fan to Another, I don't feel bad telling you to: Blow Me.

And who the ******** made you the expert on this topic?

[Fuegofan]

Actually, they [DC United] will hopefully build a stadium in the forseeable future. They have a site picked out--Poplar Point on the Anacostia River. Now they just have to wade through D.C. politics. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them in their own stadium in 2008.

See the struggle the Nationals have had in getting their public financing. I honestly can not understand why MLS is attempting to put pressure on municipalities to finance concert venues which host soccer 20-25 dates a year. It is not like soccer is as woven into our cultural fabric as football or baseball. Nine years ago the league did not exist and as far as the majority of the population is concerned, still does not.

I've watched it fairly carefully, going so far as to write ward bosses in DC. I agree with Fenty (an anti-baseball stadium ward boss) that giving a blank check/welfare check to 29 multimillionaires is ridiculous. On the other hand there's something to be said for the money stadiums bring in which wouldn't come otherwise. In baseball's case it's the 29 other teams (with their retinues) and the money they spend that is not money already in DC. In soccer's case it's 11 other teams, plus the various national teams, plus the various exhibition teams, plus teams in training, plus the fans travelling to the training center to practice. All of these will bring revenue to DC which isn't already there, which justifies, to an extent, an outlay of funds by a city for a soccer specific stadium. Depending on the number of nights these folks stay near the training facility, there is the potential that a DC SSS could bring in as much out of District revenue as a baseball team (though that would mean at least 81 baseball days plus). This argument could be turned to Philadelphia, except that DC seems to be the USMNT headquarters on the East Coast. So really we're only talking 16 regular season games, playoffs, preseason (if any), and concerts. Like you said, 20-25 dates per year. Does Philly have an outdoor arena for concerts? If not, that will make the stadium's use 30 nights or maybe more. You're right, something used so rarely should only have a small contribution from the city since the owner will reap most of the benefits. A regional training facility like DC or the HDC on the other hand would earn dividends for the city (and yes, I know that the HDC was built entirely with private funds, though with a land grant from CSU Dominguez Hills).


The Krafts own the stadium and the team. While I think all the other owners would agree that a smaller stadium would be ideal for the Revs, Krafts have a bit of seniority and aren't worried about controlling their revenue stream. They likely have carte blanche.

And they are pissing away their fan base. .

Which really pisses me off. They had a great fan base, one of the best in the league that stuck with them through bad campaign after bad campaign. I think they would be much better served if they played in Boston with different ownership. I have to say, I went to a Boston Breakers playoff game (they were playing Washington Freedom in a playoff) at BU because a) there was inclement weather, b) Mia Hamm was playing, c) it cost too much in time and money to get out to Foxboro. I think there were as many for the WUSA match as there were at Foxboro that day.


2. No 300 pound linemen tearing up your turf. 300 pounders put lots of divots in the turf. This makes it impossible for the round ball to travel smoothly. This results in awkward and unexpected bounces. This leads to bad soccer.

Is it the best situation? No, but they have found a way to make it work for 9 years in New England, Chicago, Kansas and San Jose. I'd also like to point out that some EPL teams share their grounds with rugby clubs.

Point well taken. And I'm glad you answered a question I had at the back of my head which was whether SJ State still played at Spartan. Also note that the Colorado Mammoths of Major League Lacrosse will likely start playing at the Rapids's new stadium. Which reminds me that a SSS in Philly could be used for their MLL team, too (I assume they have one). One difference between MLL and rugby versus American football is that there aren't as many lines to have to change and obscure. Also note that while the four teams you mentioned do share with the NFL, I don't think anyone will tell you that's a good situtation.


3. In an SSS you don't have to pay exhorbitant amounts of rent, you get the revenue streams from parking, concessions, boxes, admission,--in other words, you get all the money. The Meadowlands charges the Metrostars something like $100,000 per game. That's not the way to profitability. On the other hand, if you own the stadium (or lease it for something really cheap), you can get revenue not only from games, but also from booking concerts (note that Chicago, Columbus, and Dallas all have built in stages), which is actually potentially more profitable than the soccer end of things.

There is some truth to what you state here. Your first sentence should be "In an SSS MLS owns..." While Uncle Phil has been a wonderful benefactor of soccer, do not be fooled. AEG is also one of the biggest concert promoters in the country. And what of the field conditions after 10,000 people have stood on the pitch during the Dave Matthews concert?

I intentionally didn't write "In an SSS MLS owns . . ." because neither Chicago nor Dallas nor Colorado will own its stadium. In each case the city or county will own the stadium. Ironically the MLS teams will still have to lease the stadiums. However, they will be the primary tenants, will manage the stadiums, and get the lion's share of the money from them. And yes, AEG is either 2nd or 3rd in the country in concert tours (though that stat is a few years old, I doubt it's changed much). What I'm wondering is if Kroenke and Checketts will be pressured to give AEG priority because of the MLS connection. As for the condition of the pitch, you have an excellent point that I hope they address.


4. Finally, the fan experience is simply that much better. It's more intimate and louder. It brings the fans closer to the field. This makes the game more exciting for the fans and harder on opposing teams. It increases demand because the atmosphere is better. And, you can force fans to pony up for season tickets instead of just walking up to the gate. You can't scare many fans into the Linc selling out when it has 80,000 seats, but in a stadium with only 20,000 seats it's advisable to have season tickets.

I hope you have been to the Linc before stating anything about the atmosphere. I was there when it was sold out the first time Champions World came to town and I have been there with only 15K for a Temple football game. Honestly, I had a better 'fan' experience with only 15K in the lower bowl due much to the fact that the sightlines and proximity to the field from all the seats in the lower level are truly awe-some. Close off the upper level and you have a great 25K seat facility.

Nope, haven't been to the Linc. I was speaking more generally about the reasons for SSSs instead of being in NFL stadiums. I have been at old Soldier Field for Bears games and for Fire games and the atmosphere was generally better for Fire games simply because there is a different energy. Soccer fans seem to be a bit more participatory or organized or something. I'm glad to hear it's a good experience at the Linc, and I hope it's the same at Seahawks Stadium and Reliant, because in all three cases, if a team gets into the league from those cities, those will likely be their home stadiums (though in Houston, Robertson has been talked about. However, if the Texans owner buys a team, you have to assume he's going to want them to play in Reliant).

In closing, let me just say that Philadelphia is one of the few cities in the US I haven't been to. I hope that you fans not only read these boards, but also go out and use your connections to find potential owners. Be creative. Persevere. Look at SSV in San Jose and learn from them regarding what it takes to find an owner. Talk to them and the new group in KC doing the same thing. I hope you get a team so that I have the excuse to come visit.

[DaMunk]

maybe they COULD find a way, but why bother if some other city will build a SSS. as stated, every team is on a path by about 2008 (hopefully) to have a SSS or be sold to an outside investor (SJ/KC to San Antonio, Houston, or Rochester). why should Philly be any different? Seattle might be a comparison (almost got a team in Qwest - read that again QWEST - Anchutz's company). That's all about "geographic footprint" (not team in pacific northwest. Philly offers a great market but is about 100 miles from Giants Stadium and 150 from DC. 2-3 years ago I think Philly was a top candidate regardless of a SSS. Now I think the SSS is vital (small possibility of a great lease deal & owner putting a team in Lincoln).

I could be totally wrong, but I believe Paul Allen, who owns the Seahawks, also owns Qwest Field with Anschutz's involvement limited to having one of his holdings' name on the building.

[bofahey]

Billf has it right with the 68 yards in width, and there is room to extent the width to 72 or 73 yards.
I agree that the pitch at the Linc is 68 yards as now configured, but isn't that with essentially no grass area around the corner flags (i.e., players have to essentially try to get footing on concrete when taking corners)?

If the "track" area could be converted to grass, I agree that it could be 70 yards wide with a little bit of grass area left for corners. However, this would require players taking corners almost directly below spectators in the corner, and in the present day security environment, I really doubt that "track" area will ever be converted to part of the playing surface, since it puts players very close to fans and leaves no room for security to stand and watch from the field. You also get into issues of having no room for vehicles driving on the perimeter, etc., and since this is soccer we're talking about, good luck getting someone to spend the significant amount of money it would cost to get rid of concrete and extend drainage and the pitch further (that ain't cheap). MLS won't be paying for that.

Considering all of that, I'd bet the Linc never widens past 68 yards, and its MLS hopes died when the soccer public in Philly got fooled by the false platitudes about it being "soccer friendly".

If the Linc had been built 10 years earlier, I think a successful MLS team would currently be playing there. However, MLS is no longer in the same desparate position it was when the league first opened. There is no real need to expand, so the possibility of playing in a very nice new NFL stadium, even with a good rent deal, is probably not very enticing to them.