The Seattle Puzzle

[sounderfan]

How many pieces are actually in place towards putting together the "Seattle MLS Puzzle?"

1. Do we have a suitable stadium ready if/until a soccer-specific venue can be built?

YES.

Qwest Field, Downtown Seattle. Of all the NFL stadia now in use in MLS, I believe it is the only one located in the downtown area of a large city.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/sports/seahawks/stadium/cover04.jpg

2. Does Seattle have any "inside guys" who can rub elbows with MLS guys?

YES.

I suppose Seattle Seahawks (NFL) CEO Tod Leiweke is a name to drop here. His brother Tim has heavy involvement with AEG, a major MLS investor. Tim now is the President of the successful Los Angeles Galaxy.

Speaking of Tim, Tod, and AEG: How about that "Qwest" Field thing:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/176187_qwestt03.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/179433_hawk25.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20040603/226qwestfield_leiweke.jpg
There's Tod L. during the "Qwest" naming announcement that brought 25 million into Paul Allen's Stadium coffers. Qwest is a Anschutz company. Anschutz established AEG, which runs several MLS teams.

3. Does Seattle have "a love for the beautiful game?"

Depends. Yes and No, and...perhaps. "Event" matches have drawn very well here. The average for US Nats/Champions World matches has been well over 40,000, with a high of 67,000 when Manchester United Visited. The current Seattle Sounders of the USL-1 average around 3,000 per match at Qwest Field. Seattle is the most active soccer-playing city per capita in the USA. Over 500,000 people are involved in the sport in some way in the Puget Sound Metroplex.

4. Is Seattle an important market in terms of TV share / National "footprint?"

YES. MLS hopes to put a franchise here within the next 2-4 years. If only one franchise comes to the Pacific Northwest, MLS likely hopes it is in Seattle. Why? Name recognition, considered an "International City," associated with being "Major League." While Portland and Vancouver are excellent MLS expansion choices, the league continually mentions Seattle on its list of "possible choices." The Seattle area TV Market is currently the 12th largest in the USA, and growing.

5. Does Seattle have ownership?

NO.

Seattle Sounders owner Adrian Hanauer has tried in recent years to pull together an MLS ownership group. He has some money (He's quite wealthy) but wants another large-bucks partner to make sure Seattle MLS has strong financial footing. Lately he says he's "stopped looking" for that partner:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2002243080_sounders16.html

6. Is there any "buzz" in Seattle about getting an MLS team?

NO. The sad result of on-again off-again news between the city and MLS dating back to 1996 is that for the most part the city and its sports fans are now taking a "when it gets here, we'll get excited" stance. Don't expect a big public rally in the city to bring MLS to Seattle. The time when that would have been successful has passed, I'm afraid. Does that mean Seattle doesn't want MLS? I don't think so. I think it means that we are becoming more sophisticated here about the way sports teams are born and run: rich guys with a desire to create, own and perhaps run them.

Ever-hopeful site: http://GoalSeattle.com

What can you add?

[Sachsen]

Good post, sounderfan. Excellent summary of the situation.

There was a press conference in Dallas this week regarding the naming of Pizza Hut Park. One of the Dallas guys did an excellent summary of the press conference with Don Garber and here was one of the Q-and-A's posted:

http://www.3rddegree.net/thirdindex.cfm?page=article&show=731

Expand into market without SSS?

DG: We won't do that. In RSL we knew we had a number of cities who wanted to talk stadium. But in some other markets that doesn't exist. In KC we can't succeed there without SSS, unlike Gillette where Kraft owns every aspect it can work, so only size is bad. It's Often about schedule as much as anything.

Other than ownership (has Hanauer settled on just waiting for interested parties to come to him now?), this may be the biggest holdup for Seattle. Yes, I'm sure Qwest Field would work fine temporarily, certainly as well as or better than Rice-Eccles. But it sounds to me like Garber is holding the line on expansion clubs at least having serious plans in the works to move forward on a SSS. If Hanauer got more investors on board, is that in his sights? Or is he content to try and stay at Qwest?

Qwest would be a fine place to play, no doubt. It's a beautiful stadium, and with the upper stands closed off, not too cavernous. But I think it's more about control -- control of scheduling, control of revenues, control of atmosphere, etc., that would not make it a good long-term solution for an MLS team.

[sounderfan]

Other than ownership (has Hanauer settled on just waiting for interested parties to come to him now?), this may be the biggest holdup for Seattle. Yes, I'm sure Qwest Field would work fine temporarily, certainly as well as or better than Rice-Eccles. But it sounds to me like Garber is holding the line on expansion clubs at least having serious plans in the works to move forward on a SSS. If Hanauer got more investors on board, is that in his sights? Or is he content to try and stay at Qwest?

Qwest would be a fine place to play, no doubt. It's a beautiful stadium, and with the upper stands closed off, not too cavernous. But I think it's more about control -- control of scheduling, control of revenues, control of atmosphere, etc., that would not make it a good long-term solution for an MLS team.

The ever-quoted 2004 Soccer365 Adrian Hanauer interview:
http://www.soccer365.com/_365_Interviews/page_123_73940.shtml

relevant to stadium issue:

365: I was at a press conference with MLS Commissioner Don Garber in Chicago when he mentioned Seattle as one of the four finalists. One of the things he mentioned about Seattle is that there is a potential that they wouldn’t play in Seahawk Stadium long term. Are there any kinds of solid plans at all right now for a soccer specific stadium?

AH: 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.


and...


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.

[Paul Schmidt]

That Hanauer quote about "low rent" and sharing concessions and parking IS the killer.

The soccer team has to have... HAS TO HAVE... ALL the revenues from game days as a minumum just to make the thing potentially workable. Half-arsed arrangements are a deal killer. The moment San Antonio wanted a few concessions from the original MOA with MLS, MLS bailed.

[FireFanInPackerLand]

Qwest Field, Downtown Seattle. Of all the NFL stadia now in use in MLS, I believe it is the only one located in the downtown area of a large city.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/sports/seahawks/stadium/cover04.jpg

What can you add?

Ummm....ever hear of a place called Soldier Field?

http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10116000/10116703.jpg

[denver_mugwamp]

5. Does Seattle have ownership?

NO.



You really don't need to mention anything other than this. All your other items are inconsequental. There would be teams in Oklahoma City and Cleveland right now if they had ownership. Heck, I'll bet Omaha could have a team if an ownership group emerged.

By the way, Invesco Field is in downtown Denver as are Coors Field and the Pepsi Center.

[sounderfan]

I've been to Soldier Field, but not Invesco. SF is not nearly as accessible to the downtown area of Chicago as Qwest is in Seattle (at least by foot), but of course it is still "downtown." Thanks for the corrections.

I'll stop mentioning Seattle as a possiblity...when Don Garber stops. ;) Which, by the way, I have been wanting him to do. That, or explain exactly why he keeps mentioning an apparently investorless city as a candidate. What else can we assume except that SOME of the important pieces are there, and that the league WANTS Seattle in?

[GMan Eric]

I've been to Invesco for a Rapids game a couple years ago. It's quite a bit farther on foot towards the rest of downtown Denver than Qwest is to downtown Seattle. So much so that we drove there from our hotel rather than hoof it on foot.

Coors Field (and to a bit lesser extent, Pepsi Center), which I've been to as well, is much more accessible than Invesco is. Especially if you're staying in a hotel downtown.

[denver_mugwamp]

I've been to Invesco for a Rapids game a couple years ago. It's quite a bit farther on foot towards the rest of downtown Denver than Qwest is to downtown Seattle. So much so that we drove there from our hotel rather than hoof it on foot.

Coors Field (and to a bit lesser extent, Pepsi Center), which I've been to as well, is much more accessible than Invesco is. Especially if you're staying in a hotel downtown.

Great point. But don't tell it to me. Tell it to your potential investors.

[sounderfan]

Adrian Hanauer understood this part of the Seattle puzzle:

There will be NO public money for any kind of new soccer venue. Period.
It's Qwest Field or nothing for starting an MLS team in Seattle. After that it would be up to a new group of owners to develop the business into one that could support/warrant its own facility...likely somewhere outside of town in say, Kent, Everett (perhaps even Tacoma).

So he spent a lot of time with the Seahawks talking about "sharing" the stadium revenue. The one way this could work is if Paul Allen / First and Goal / Qwest Stadium Authority make the future MLS owners *partners* in the stadium. The MLS owners could invest in Qwest Field and in return be part "owners" of the facility. Stipulation of their part ownership would have to be complete proceeds from concessions and parking at Qwest.

Would Allen go for this? Some thought that when the stadium took $25 million in rights money from Qwest (Anschutz) to use the name "Qwest Field" that that was one move toward giving Paul Allen reason toward allowing MLS future free rent and income-sharing at the stadium. The jury is still out on that rumor.

The Seattle Sounders of the ULS can currently afford to play in Qwest Field because they do not pay rent. They pay only for game-day staff salaries, which are minimal. Hanauer negotiated the current Sounders lease with Qwest. Qwest Field agreed to these terms as a "friendly gesture" to encourage pro soccer in the area, and to fill dates in the venue.

The Sounders do not have scheduling priority, though. Even things like exhibition LaCrosse and high school graduations do. Despite this the Sounders do have a good amount of weekend/Saturday night home matches at Qwest in 2005.

[AndyMead]

5. Does Seattle have ownership?

NO.

What can you add?

Until this changes, there is nothing more to add. Sad, but true. I would love to see Seattle in the league, but until a group with viable MLS-level liquid assets emerges, nothing else matters.

[sounderfan]

Until this changes, there is nothing more to add. Sad, but true. I would love to see Seattle in the league, but until a group with viable MLS-level liquid assets emerges, nothing else matters.

And yet the talk of our western city from MLS offices will continue, and the name "Seattle" will roll off of Garbers lips mere seconds after the term expansion does...signifying their hopes more than our realities, it would seem.

[AndyMead]

And yet the talk of our western city from MLS offices will continue, and the name "Seattle" will roll off of Garbers lips mere seconds after the term expansion does...signifying their hopes more than our realities, it would seem.

Sure. It's called leverage. Politicians in other cities can use the "Seattle threat" as cover when proposing to use public resources to help subsidize MLS efforts.

San Antonio may not ever get an MLS team, but the San Antonio effect has definitely paid off large for MLS. I know for a fact that the threat of relocation has helped soften up some local governments in the Kansas City area. It also apparently has helped in the ongoing negotiations to get a stadium for the MetroStars.

In the MLS expansion/relocation sweepstakes, it is important for MLS to have more potential sites than there are available teams.

[sounderfan]

So, we have listed at least some of what Seattle has to offer the league.

What does Seattle/MLS have to offer future owners/investors who might be considering putting a MLS franchise in the Emerald City?

A chance to own a soccer club in a major city?
A chance to capture this soccer market before someone else eventually does?
A chance to get in on the growth of the league?
A chance to make use of a world-class venue?
A chance to build a regional sports franchise in the mold of the Mariners/Seahawks that draws from a 5-state, BC Province region?
A chance to impress the ladies with preseason tours to Portugal?
A chance to lose millions of dollars per "Go-o-o-o-a-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l!!!"?

[crewcrazy17]

In regards to Qwest Field, I seem to remember that when the financing for the stadium was up for vote, that replacing the turf with grass was required if Seattle landed a Div I soccer team. I that correct? That makes it an improvement over Rice-Eccles at least.

[BLG]

Yeah, but the people in charge are now saying that field turf is FIFA approved so it's OK to use for MLS.

That is a problem that will have to be be addressed after we get a team.

As if it mattered: a wide grass field for soccer was the only reason I voted for the stadium. If I'd known the Seahawks would change their minds and insist in playing on plastic, I would not have voted for it. I think many other soccer people would have felt the same and the stadium wouldn't have been approved.

[GMan Eric]

Exactly. That's the same reason I voted for it as well -- in addition to the now infamous letter "build it and MLS will come" from Doug Logan.

If I'd known then what happened in the meantime, I'd not have voted yes at all. Guess I was the fool for believing the Seahawks/Paul Allen regarding that stadium having grass.

[Geoduck]

Two local non-obvious moneymen with soccer ties are former governor Booth Gardner (ex-NASL owner and national champion women's soccer coach; stepdad, an ex-Weyerhauser president, worth ~$450 million when he passed on in the mid-90s) and tech CEO Russell Horowitz (ex-HS soccer player who cashed out $125 million as head of Go2Net, where he played on the company's indoor soccer team). They might not have enough money themselves, though. Starfire's owner Chris Slatt was also a tech CEO, but he can't do it himself (grossed about $40-50 million from Watchguard).

While the "no public money for soccer" statement is correct (and something I agree with), the Tacoma Dome may be getting $40 million in renovations soon (comparable in funds to Houston's Delmar proposal); the city is planning to put the money up for voter approval in the fall, and it's expected to pass. The Dome will probably end up with all individual seats and portable FieldTurf. Inexplicably, the city is targeting the CBA (?!) and arena football for anchor tenants - soccer hasn't been mentioned at all. (It's only possible because they're accommodating HS football.) Also, there won't be any suites; a 70x110 yard field with 20,000 seats might not be possible; and most importantly, with MLS in full cash-grab mode, Tacoma likely (c/sh/w)ould not meet the league's terms, despite the city's history as a friendly landlord.

If Andrew Murstein is truly a free agent (which I kinda doubt, but that's been the portrayal), then even places like Spokane are fair game for discussion. Since Hanauer is only willing to go in for half right now and Murstein has stated a long-term desire to only half of a team, it would make sense to pair them up - which means it won't happen.

However, I've had it with the empty talk, too. Kill this forum, and somebody tell the MLS bigwigs to STFU about Seattle until they're ready to make things official. I might still be alive in 2060 to hear the announcement.

[Freddy Garcia Lives]

As a guy who just got back from a trip to Seattle and probably moving to the greater area next year, I'm all for a MLS team in Seattle. But watching 10,000 in Crew stadium sucks, I'd hate to see even 20,000 in Qwest Field (I know all about the lower bowl issue). Not just that, but parking can really be a beast in the South end of downtown. I really hope something happens, but I just don't see it as things stand now. But I was excited to see plenty of nice soccer fields in good shape throughout the Metro area. And there was some coverage in the paper for the Sounders and soccer in general. Lets see the U.S. support at the Gold Cup. It can't hurt. All that said I still feel that Portland seems more like a RSL situation than Seattle does a Galaxy scenario.

[thepundit]

i love how we have to cut teachers' salaries in our city and healthcare workers and educators see less money all of the time, but we've found enough to pay for our ugly hulking blue thing to be made nice enough for a Continental Basketball Association team to be attracted........wait what the hell am i talking about we might get Rodman! i'd welcome Arena Football though, i think that's a cool sport. how much would it cost to build a good 20,000 seat stadium?