This whole San Antonio deal may benefit Seattle

[Sempuukyaku]

The city of San Antonio is offering MLS a deal that is simply too good to pass up, and as a result they're on the verge of scoring a team (expansion or relocation).


Sooooo, if an MLS team playing at Qwest Field can get a similar deal (maybe not so much free rent, but really really low rent), then Seattle could be a good possibility.


Of course, there's still the issue of finding an investor..... :(

[sounderfan]

The city of San Antonio is offering MLS a deal that is simply too good to pass up, and as a result they're on the verge of scoring a team (expansion or relocation).


Sooooo, if an MLS team playing at Qwest Field can get a similar deal (maybe not so much free rent, but really really low rent), then Seattle could be a good possibility.


Of course, there's still the issue of finding an investor..... :(

The Sounders play at Qwest Field rent-free right now. They pay only for game-day staff. A similar long-term commitment is possible for MLS, as Hanauer stated in May of '04...


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...





In case you missed it a year ago...here's the whole article.

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

[swedcrip34]

The city of San Antonio is offering MLS a deal that is simply too good to pass up, and as a result they're on the verge of scoring a team (expansion or relocation).


Sooooo, if an MLS team playing at Qwest Field can get a similar deal (maybe not so much free rent, but really really low rent), then Seattle could be a good possibility.


Of course, there's still the issue of finding an investor..... :(


I'm not sure Allen would be ok in letting MLS be the primary tenant :)

Although Anschutz could just pay himself money and say MLS gets a cut of the naming rights.

[GMan Eric]

S.A. in 2006 sounds suspiciously like moving KC or SJ rather than an expansion team. Who else would you get for next year to keep the league at an even number of teams?

And even so, expanding again only one year after adding two teams would dilute the product a bit too much, too soon. I'd wait at least another year to add teams, if I were the league.

[GoRapids]

S.A. in 2006 sounds suspiciously like moving KC or SJ rather than an expansion team. Who else would you get for next year to keep the league at an even number of teams?

And even so, expanding again only one year after adding two teams would dilute the product a bit too much, too soon. I'd wait at least another year to add teams, if I were the league.

You're right ... they'd never announce this without an owner. They already have an owner. KC is moving.

[Geoduck]

The city of San Antonio is offering MLS a deal that is simply too good to pass up,Which is why the SA deal hurts Seattle's chances. The people running MLS will feel that much more emboldened and entitled to make exceedingly arrogant demands of future expansion/relocation candidates, when the current demands are already out of reach. Plus a San Antonio team means either one less expansion slot available or one less weak franchise to prey on.

[swedcrip34]

Which is why the SA deal hurts Seattle's chances. The people running MLS will feel that much more emboldened and entitled to make exceedingly arrogant demands of future expansion/relocation candidates, when the current demands are already out of reach. Plus a San Antonio team means either one less expansion slot available or one less weak franchise to prey on.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2002243080_sounders16.html
Seattle Times - Seattle's chances for MLS team take a hit

Hanauer only willing 50% now as stated on here. Article says he was in for 100% last season.

[Sempuukyaku]

The people running MLS will feel that much more emboldened and entitled to make exceedingly arrogant demands of future expansion/relocation candidates, when the current demands are already out of reach.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


That's why AEG wants to do a partnership with DC officials for a stadium for United while the MLB came in and DEMANDED the city pay for the entire cost.

And why AEG wants a partnership with NJ

And why AEG pretty much foot the entire bill for the HDC

And why Hunt foot the entire bill for Crew Stadium

And why Hunt paid for a good portion of Frisco

And why Kroenke is footing the bill for the stadium AND the entire retail complex surrounding it

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:



We want Seattle to have a team, but coming up with lame-ass excuses to diss MLS with is bush league...grow up, man.

[sounderfan]

To the soccer fans in the Seattle area, an MLS team would be quite a prize.
To the "City of Seattle...?" Hardly a big deal.

MLS remains more interested in Seattle than Seattle does in MLS. The timing is still not right for the two to "get together."

MLS reps continue to mention Seattle in every expansion phase. It seems like they are almost "pleading" for a rich guy to make it happen here. They want the "Major League" city feel, the central Northwest location, the near top-ten TV market, and to tie in with the city's long history with the sport at the pro level and it's gigantic soccer-involved community.

I would guess that BOTH Hanauer and MLS are put back a bit that 2005 didn't work out for Seattle. It sounds like it was the closest the city has come in a while.

If/when MLS works its way to 18-20 franchises, it would be hard to imagine that one of those 18-20 was not right here in Seattle...somehow, someway...someday.

[Geoduck]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


That's why AEG wants to do a partnership with DC officials for a stadium for United while the MLB came in and DEMANDED the city pay for the entire cost.

And why AEG wants a partnership with NJ

And why AEG pretty much foot the entire bill for the HDC

And why Hunt foot the entire bill for Crew Stadium

And why Hunt paid for a good portion of Frisco

And why Kroenke is footing the bill for the stadium AND the entire retail complex surrounding it

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:



We want Seattle to have a team, but coming up with lame-ass excuses to diss MLS with is bush league...grow up, man.HSG is paying $10 million of the $65-70 million Frisco complex - hardly a "good portion" in percentage terms, and puny considering the complex's cost is a small fraction of Hunt's net worth.

George Steinbrenner is about to build a new Yankee Stadium with his own money for nearly 10x the entire cost of the Harrison project, so "AEG wanting a partnership with NJ" isn't very generous.

Take a look at the trend. Crew Stadium & HDC, 2 of the first stadiums in the construction cycle, were all built or renovated with 100% ownership money. The owners deserved and received tremendous credit for paying the entire cost. (Might as well include Lockhart and Gillette stadium too.) But the more recent developments have AEG paying nothing for the Bridgeview stadium, Frisco subsidizing Hunt, and San Antonio having to build suites & a practice complex (when did that ever become a requirement?), on top of giving away nearly all total revenues for a stadium it funded, for a team that wouldn't even be locked in for the long term. (I'm not going to take your word on the Kroenke contribution - if he weren't receiving a public subsidy, there probably wouldn't have been a need for a public vote.)

I'm a hard-line opponent of corporate subsidies, soccer or non-soccer, sports or non-sports. Always have been, always will be. If somebody wanted to fund a stadium without public subsidy, there would be little citizen opposition and many cities willing to house the stadium. So how can it not be termed corporate greed when AEG is making money off its privately funded HDC, but refuses to repeat that effort elsewhere?

If/when MLS works its way to 18-20 franchises, it would be hard to imagine that one of those 18-20 was not right here in Seattle...somehow, someway...someday.It's flattering for us to be thought of in that way, but the NFL is prospering without an LA team, and NASCAR has flourished without ever being in NY, so unfortunately, it's not difficult for me to envision a 20-team MLS without Seattle.

[sounderfan]

It's flattering for us to be thought of in that way, but the NFL is prospering without an LA team, and NASCAR has flourished without ever being in NY, so unfortunately, it's not difficult for me to envision a 20-team MLS without Seattle.


SOMEONE in this area is likely eventually getting a team.

So, would you go to more MLS matches for a Portland team, or a Vancouver side?

[YTFC]

Neither. As I'd expect them to say if the roles were reversed.

And Adrian's frequently failing fliratations with MLS may turn off some of what's left of Seattle's soccer market.

[sounderfan]

Neither. As I'd expect them to say if the roles were reversed.

And Adrian's frequently failing fliratations with MLS may turn off some of what's left of Seattle's soccer market.

Hanauer needs to invest in NOW. Sure it's a money-loser, but he's a business guy. He knows the spend-some-to-make-some theory (just doesn't practice it with marketing the club.) And, if MLS is now off of his radar...does that mean he's in for the long haul in USL-1????


BTW, the Sounders have really improved their outreach to local youth soccer clubs this off-season. And, with the return of the $50 all-season youth pass, we will likely see a modest attendance gain.

Of course, with SIX matches before school even gets out, who knows...


As for MLS Northwest...

I'd go to either Portland or Vancouver to watch games. It would take a bit to "adopt" one of them, but I could see myself letting it happen if Seattle MLS doesn't.

[GMan Eric]

Under the assumption of either/both Portland & Vancouver getting MLS teams, but not Seattle:

I sure as hell would never support a Portland team. Might go to the odd game but I'd be supporting the away team vigorously every time.

Vancouver would be somewhat similar, but the level of "venom" isn't anything close. I'd probably go, get drunk with the rowdies, but support neither team. Since the Whitecaps have been our rivals ever since I can remember, couldn't in good name be one of their supporters.

All that being said, I think it's more likely that at least two of the three cities will (or should) come in together, and if one is missing, Seattle's least likely of the three to be missing. But that's a few years away I suspect.

[Aljarov]

I'd say the way it will help Seattle most, is that if a team relocates next season then an expansion slot frees up in 2007. San Antonio is a big competitor so their removal from the fray due to relocation gives Seattle a strong run at the expansion slot for 2007 (assuming Toronto is the other).

[GMan Eric]

The bottom seems to have fallen out of Toronto's bid recently, so who knows. Don't exactly rate Seattle right now regardless... :(