Read Full Article Here - http://www.oregonlive.com/timbers/o...sports/1178078117254420.xml&coll=7&thispage=3
Sounderfan, thanks for posting the article. The article says: "Keston described Qwest Field as the perfect venue for an MLS expansion team in Seattle." Huh? What??? MLS is never going to put a team in a gigantic football stadium - at least not for more than one or two years as a temporary move. MLS has made it abundantly clear that they are only going to award teams to cities that have built, or have plans to build, a new socccer-specific stadium. What is most surprising about this article is that Keston doesn't seem to know that. Hasn't anyone told him that? Maybe someone told him that, and he didn't believe it. Or perhaps he meant that Qwest Field is the perfect TEMPORARY venue for a team. It's possible that the reporter accidentally left out the word "temporary."
PGE Park looks like a great facility to host an MLS team. I would love to see it converted into a SSS by adding more seats on the current feild. However that would mean that the Beavers would no longer be able to play at the park.
There's something I've wanted to know for a while, and maybe some Seattle fan can enlighten me. Supposedly, part of the pitch to get public funds for Qwest was the promise of an MLS team, so my question is, what is it like watching soccer at Qwest? I would presume that the field itself is plenty big enough, but how about everything else? Is the FieldTurf halfway decent for soccer? Is the lower bowl shaped in a way where you could have 20,000 people (or fewer) there and have it feel less cavernous and empty than the reports I hear about Arrowhead and especially the Meadowlands? I know that unless Paul Allen is the main investor for a Seattle MLS team, the economics just won't work, but as a temporary home and as a general soccer venue, how would Qwest be?
I see. So basically, it was a general purpose scam never seriously considered even by the people saying it.
Qwest field is one of the most beautiful soccer stadiums I have watched games in. I watched the Chelsea-Celtic friendly a while back, the DC-Real Madrid game and the US Gold Cup games last year. The stadium is perfect for soccer viewlines and the parking aint bad. In all of those games there was grass so I cannot tell you about the turf. It is a very easy stadium to get to and I have never had problems finding parking there (5-20 bucks depending).
40,000 empty seats always looks like 40,000 empty seats. The shape and configuration of the lower bowl will never change this.
Invesco Field in Denver was also a great facility for soccer. It had a grass field with reasonably decent dimensions. Great sight lines. The rent was supposedly only $20,000 a game with some sort of cut on concessions. Parking was never a problem. I paid as little as $3 at a lot across the street. So why do you suppose the Rapids went to such a lot of trouble to build their own place? It's simply impossible for a MLS team to make money in a NFL stadium. Even the Revolution has been exploring stadium possibilities, and they own Gillette. Putting a MLS team in Qwest Field without a solid SSS plan is recipe for disaster. I guess that makes Portland the front runner for now.
Hey now, Gillette was also designed with soccer in mind. I'm still doing cartwheels because they left enough room for a pitch. Boy, am I dizzy.
Touche. I guess I was being optimistic, and I hadn't realized what a common red herring soccer promises are. Hell, thinking it over now, and pulling my tinfoil hat out of my back pocket, I can see how telling the public that the NFL stadium is also for soccer could reduce public/governmental support for any SSS plans that may come along, ESPECIALLY any that might come along before the NFL stadium is built. (tinfoil hat off)
The thread title is misleading. I point this part of the article out because Keston is a potential I/O with exclusive rights to the area. That statement is about his decision on which city he'll make a push for. It has nothing to do with MLS deciding on that city as an expansion site.
My two thoughts when reading this article: 1) It is clear that the USL and MLS can't coexist in Portland, so why not give the Timbers a type of "promotion," or at least keep the name Timbers and some of the old players. I would damper the old Northwestern rivalries with Vancouver and Seattle, but it would (I should hope) retain most of and add to the Timber's fan base. 2) Are they freaking brain-dead with those temporary stadium offers? 4,000? 10,000? Maybe they could add bleachers to accomodate? What is this, a Youth Tournament? That would be Mickey Mouse to the max. It would have to be PGE or nothing. Then, maybe their own digs more down the line since PGE is (correct me if I am wrong) laid out more like a baseball stadium since the Beavers play there.
What people fail to realize is that USL teams already have ownership groups. It's not as simple as Garber phoning them up and saying, "Hey! Congrats! We're promoting you to the MLS." These ownership groups need to have the financial resources to compete in MLS and want to be there. Clearly some do not (read: Rochester). As for the stadium situation, sure PGE Park would be the ideal location, but the Beavers and Timbers already have lease agreements there. Adding a third tenant could cause some major scheduling problems, and the potential investor already said he doesn't want to upset that relationship.
*sigh* Did THIS have to hit the papers THIS week? Ugh. (Sounders and Timbers play twice over a six-day period this weekend, next Friday...) http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2007/04/30/daily23.html?f=et80&hbx=e_du
The USL-1 Portland-Seattle rivlary is already pretty incredible... Just imagine what it would be in the MLS... Whether Seattle or Portland gets the MLS teams, I really do hope the other would soon follow. Breaking up this rivlary would be a travesty, in that in the end is the sad part .
I think that if one of these cities gets it, it will be a while - if at all - until the other one gets an MLS team as well. I would hate to see a great rivalry broken up, but there are too many other cities that also have plans competing for limited expansion slots. I think it would make more sense to go to one of these two places, then fill a geographical void in MLS that we know can be supported such as someplace in the southeast. Then, there is also the whole Philly, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit, etc.