Seattle Underfinanced?

[sounderfan]

"If I was a richer man, we'd be in MLS right now."

So came the words from the head guy involved in the Seattle MLS bid, Adrian Hanauer. "It's really all about the money." Hanauer spoke candidly at a recent fan function for players and supporters of his well-financed USL-1 club, the Sounders.

Not that MLS couldn't allow Seattle in as-is, but the league is looking for "investors" in its brand...Dave Checketts-types who have 15-mil to drop on the way in the door.

So the search continues on Hanauer's part for the right ownership mix that will make MLS wag its tail and drop its tongue.

Meanwhile, somewhere in a smokey room, playing electric guitar wearing a "I hate soccer" shirt...is Paul Allen. :mad:

[JasonC]

No ******** it's all about the money.

MLS doesn't want another Ken Horowitz situation.

[AndyMead]

No ******** it's all about the money.

MLS doesn't want another Ken Horowitz situation.

Exactly. It's the same reason that DuRoss and Rochester aren't already in MLS, too.

[Delta Blues]

Exactly. It's the same reason that DuRoss and Rochester aren't already in MLS, too.

Which, despite my aching desire to see MLS in Seattle is absolutely the right stance by MLS.

[sounderfan]

I competely agree.

Either have the capital to make it work, or stay Division 2.

Professional sports is about the money, not (only) the passion. You can do without the passion, but not without the money.

In which case a "passionately run" Division 2 club isn't such a bad thing, in the absence of the money for Division One.

[AndyMead]

Exactly. Tony Bakker has his niche in Charleston, and he's loving it.

That said, it would be really nice for someone else to step forward with the resources needed to get an MLS team in Seattle. Eventually.

[gherter]

Which, despite my aching desire to see MLS in Seattle is absolutely the right stance by MLS.

After last year's expansion round, I was left wondering if Seattle would end up with a team at all. It looks like the expansion bar has been raised to the next level. Chivas coughed up a bunch of money. Real practically has a stadium deal even before playing a single game. Both have excellent financing and big time sports managment experience. CA Houston seems ready to jump (Chivas must be looking like a winner), continuing the trend. MLS is hungry for more teams, but as long as their are one or two stronger expansion possibilities out there, like Houston, compromises like Seattle and Rochester will continue to get left out.

[BulaJacket]

MLS is hungry for more teams, but as long as their are one or two stronger expansion possibilities out there, like Houston, compromises like Seattle and Rochester will continue to get left out.
Nail hit on the head.

[DoyleG]

Exactly. It's the same reason that DuRoss and Rochester aren't already in MLS, too.

Until they start knocking on Golisano's front door.

[SoccerPrime]

At this point, Houston and/or San Antonio with the Club America connections, Toronto with the Maple Leaf(s) connection and even Portland with the Club Pachuca connections look stronger than Rochester and Seattle. However this can change in a blink of an eye if Allen or some other money man in Seattle steps up.

[Clint Eastwood]

After last year's expansion round, I was left wondering if Seattle would end up with a team at all. It looks like the expansion bar has been raised to the next level. Chivas coughed up a bunch of money. Real practically has a stadium deal even before playing a single game. Both have excellent financing and big time sports managment experience. CA Houston seems ready to jump (Chivas must be looking like a winner), continuing the trend. MLS is hungry for more teams, but as long as their are one or two stronger expansion possibilities out there, like Houston, compromises like Seattle and Rochester will continue to get left out.


Exactly right. You've got to think the next two expansion cities are CA in either San Antonio or Houston and Toronto. It appears that cities like Rochester and Seattle will have a long time to wait for MLS. In Rochester's case if it doesn't happen soon it may never happen. It's not a "sexy" market, and their only hope was to get going before the big cities made their move. If Garber has a choice between Rochester and Philly in 2010 which one do you think he goes for?

[jmeissen0]

why do you rag paul allen?

what reason does he have to step forward and fund this venture?

none that i can think of

[SoccerPrime]

why do you rag paul allen?

what reason does he have to step forward and fund this venture?

none that i can think of
Reminds me of Mutiny fans hatred of Glazer. Only men of vision and those that have deep pockets want to be in MLS. Well Glazer has deep pockets I guess...

[sounderfan]

why do you rag paul allen?

what reason does he have to step forward and fund this venture?

none that i can think of

You aint from these parts, is you?

PAUL ALLEN came to the Seattle soccer community in 1997 and asked for our vote to approve the "Football/soccer" stadium funding bill. It narrowly passed on the backs of soccer fans. So this billionaire got public funds to make a home for his Seahawks...and what many thought would be an MLS club, too. Meanwhile, then MLS commish Doug Logan jumped in bed with Allen and said Seattle would be getting an MLS franchise by 2003 IF the stadium were built. Oh yeah...and that this would be a "grass pitch" soccer/football stadium.

It's 2005:

1. The Seahawks wanted field turf. They got it.
2. MLS has restructured their expansion plans (numerous times) and no longer "place" teams via single entity, but rather want strong local ties. (I'm not against this, but it did change the dimensions of things for Seattle).
3. Paul Allen could easily afford to complete his "contract" with Seattle's soccer community and bring MLS here. But he's letting the Sounders, and Adrian Hanauer, hang in the MLS breeze by refusing to be a an investor.


(note: While Allen continues to have no interest in MLS, he is allowing the USL-1 Sounders to play at Qwest Field basically rent-free. Also, last year Qwest, An Anschutz Co,, signed a 25 million-dollar naming rights deal with the stadium, making it even more attractive to Allen to fund Seattle MLS. So far no-go.)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/othersports/123910_mls28.html



From 2003...

Although the completion of Seahawks Stadium (last year) was supposed to bring Seattle an MLS team -- at least according to stadium-stumping promises from the league's former commissioner in 1997 -- the victory, if there is to be one, won't come without a cost or someone willing to pay it.

[sounderfan]

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/168405


Seattle's courtship with MLS has been ongoing for several years. Even prior to the ballot issue to tear down the Kingdome and build Seahawks Stadium, former league commissioner Doug Logan said that if the stadium was built, the city would receive a team.

That became a moot point when Logan was replaced as commissioner in August 1999 by Don Garber, who remains in that post today.


http://seattlepitch.tripod.com/news/stadium4.html


In its lobbying effort to win legislative approval of a funding plan for the project, Paul Allen's Football Northwest group is referring to the project as a football and soccer stadium. Landing a Major League Soccer franchise would bring 25 games a year to the new stadium. MLS officials consider Seattle a prime market, but the city does not now qualify for a franchise because it lacks a natural-grass stadium that meets league requirements.

[sounderfan]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/othersports/181828_mls13.html


One of the major issues, he added, was the lack of firm investment from Seahawks owner Paul Allen, although Allen's First & Goal Co. was in negotiations to allow lease concession for an MLS team playing at Qwest Field, managed by Allen's company.

[SoccerPrime]

So its Allen's fault Seattle doesn't have a MLS team? Is that what your saying SounderFan?

[sounderfan]

So its Allen's fault Seattle doesn't have a MLS team? Is that what your saying SounderFan?

Nope. But he's got grass stains on his hands! :)

He can do whatever he wants with his money. I only wish he had not played the "soccer angle" when stumping for votes on stadium funding, only to not support (MLS) soccer after.

I know there is another way to look at it: At least Allen did help build a possible MLS stadium here. On the other hand...most are saying now that Qwest Field is too big for MLS consideration. :rolleyes:

Also..Allen's OTHER sporting ventures have not exactly been roaring successes: Seattle Seahawks and Portland "Jailblazers." Perhaps Seattle is better-off without daily Allen involvement?

(Purely from a financial point of view, though...he owns the stadium and has the cash...and at one time "used" soccer tennancy by MLS as a "selling point" to get votes.)

Did a conversation between Adrian Hanauer and Paul Allen start something like this...???

Hey, Paul..How'd you like to lose 5-8 million per year for the next 5 years on something you don't even seem to like...

Gosh, why isn't he just jumping at this chance? :D

[YTFC]

Of course, Paul Allen may have seen the stunning support that Seattle has given the existing soccer franchise and decided not to bother. It's one thing to show up for the annual Championsworld moneygrab (2003-?), it's completely another to support a team week-in and week-out. And in this case 3000 butts is far more telling than 67000.

I'm just shocked that we were lied to by a politician :) , which is all Allen was when he was stumping for "yes" votes for his stadium.

[sounderfan]

It seems like the major hurdle is finding sound investment. For the longest time, MLS has reportedly tried to woo Seahawks owner Paul Allen to run the team. However, Allen has never really expressed interest in investing in MLS despite the fact that Seahawks Stadium was built with the idea that an MLS franchise could share the facility with the Seahawks mainly because of its FieldTurf surface. Another option is a major partner sharing half the team with the current ownership of the A-League Sounders. Of course, the drawback there is that such a partner must be ready to take on expected financial losses for the first few years.

If Seattle ever gets over that hurdle, then I cannot see why they should not have an MLS expansion franchise for next year. The history and fan base is there as well as a suitable stadium, all that is needed is some major investment.



Word.

http://thefirealarm.matchnight.com/tfadefault.cfm?page=ARTICLE&show=455