Old thread here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=653654&page=45 Carry on with stadium news, information and opinions 30-60 days?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw OK someone's going to have to explain to me why I'm not allowed to use the youtube tag.
That Hearts stadium in Scotland is NICE. I like the walls on the ends of the stands -- really closes the place in and I'm sure makes for big sound amplification from the fans. On the other hand, it would also cut down on those nice cross-breezes that we need on 100-degree-plus days like today.
They wouldn't let us build it that extreme, but I love that "closed in" style, and it would really add something different to the lineup of new soccer stadiums. I also believe letting the fans sit close, and I do mean CLOSE, would be huge. To be honest, I don't think either will probably happen, but I can always hope...
The steeper and closer the stands, the better. Whenever I look at some of the newer stadia like TFC's and RSL's -- they are nice, don't get me wrong -- but they just look so... flat?? And far away and spread out? When I looked at Hearts' stadium, I said yep, that's the look. Like "stadium seating" in the newer movie theaters. High and close.
I think an intimidating, original (for this country), stadium like that would really appeal to the average kc sports fan.
Start the game at 8pm in the brutal hot part of the summer would at least give us some respite from the sun during most of the first half and second half would be tolerable. Switch back to 7 pm in the fall when it's starts to cool down and let's have day games in the early spring and very late fall...
Is 18k-18.5 k a magic number from MLS ? KC has overall averages around 10k per season for soccer going all the way back to the Comets days....how does building a stadium make for an extra 8k fans per game ? Wouldnt 14-16k be better? I think 18k per game is a fantasy. I can see some extra interest in the new home, but 8k extra interest? Too large. Id say we will be averaging mabye 12k a game in the new home with occassional sellouts for special matches. I want to be positive about it....but...... Matthias
The same thing was said about the Chef's when they moved from 40,000 seat Municipal Stadium to 80,000 seat Arrowhead. When the Chef's were garbage they didn't come close to filling it. When they were good and contended the place was sold out year after year. If the Wizards field a good, competitive team, filling an 18K venue should be doable. If they become "the thing to do" such as the early Comets or the 90's Chef's they'll out the place on a consistant basis.
I think 18K is perfect. Are we going to sell it out everygame? No, but we need room for immediate growth. Having to expand after 2-3 years would be get really expensive. I think we could realistically average 15-16K. We have been up to those figures before and with proper marketing we can do it again.
2003 and 2004 (our last great team, and right before HSG pulled the plug on all marketing for the team) we averaged 15,573 and 14,819 at Arrowhead. As long as we are competitive, 18K is completely doable in this market.
Hmm, so we're hearing most of the stadium will be covered but the area planned for the Cauldron will not be. So just spitballing here, but if the roof were the curved one we've seen that looks like eyelids, and the Cauldron were behind the goal, we would indeed be in one of the few unroofed parts of the stadium. That's the only thing that I can picture in my mind that fits that scenario, unless they had the two long sides covered but the ends without a roof. Like maybe leave it off for now, and add it later when funds are available, that sort of thing. If you squint you can see the below image depicts two opposing curved roofs covering the main stands, and a portion of the ends.
My impression is that the image above is purely an artists rendition and nothing more. I have heard recently that the sides are indeed covered, but the ends are not. The Cauldron will be at one of the ends. Uncovered. This is all subject to change of course. And this is all rumour. And no, I have not seen any renderings.
Is there anyone else who's like me in that they _love_ sitting in the Cauldron but _hate_ sitting on the end? Perhaps I just need to get used to sitting there, use the jumbotron more and whatnot, but I have such a hard time watching the game.
I hate sitting on the end, you cant really tell which runs are good and who has space....something that looks promising from our end, if you watch it later, you notice.... "crap, that was nothing at all, no wonder nothing came of it....." My vote is move to a corner AT LEAST. maybe from one corner flag TOWARDS center. One or two sections worth. My vote is cast. matthias
I have said for a long time a supporter's section should be directly across from the camera on the halfway line. Yeah they are the expensive seats, but the camera shows you the whole game, other teams notice you and the rest of the stadium notices you -- and under our current scenario it would be covered.
I thought our move from 114 (the corner) to 102 (25 yd line?) was great. We were, as Mark stated, much more visable and 102 affords the Cauldron a much better view of the match.
Warning, pot stirring comment below, read at your own risk. [Result]And handsitters everywhere were up in arms at how their seats were devalued by allowing GA to sit at the 40 yardline for $10 as opposed to the $18-$21 everyone else had paid. Wait, this isn't the grass berm argument is it? [/result] <------ducking flying objects.