To be honest, Phoenix had little choice. They could not continue to play in Peoria and be viable. Could. Not. Other spring training parks were not - I am told - receptive to hosting them, and they still would not have been long term solutions, in addition to being poor for the business for a lot of reasons. The new owners took over six months before the start of the season. With no other viable options currently existing and no time to plan, fund, acquire land for and build a permanent home for 2017, they were left with this option. That's not exactly visionary. Now, getting the parcel and getting something up that will work for now? Kudos to them. But it's not what you'd want to do if you had the choice and it's not exactly great for morale or appearances to (basically) say, "We're doing it this way in case it doesn't work out," which is the equivalent of the people in the commercial who both made plans for later in case the first date didn't work out. I would imagine their longer-term plans include bolstering the infrastructure on site so that, in time, it's NOT just bleachers and tents and seats from the Phoenix Open. They just had no time to do that before they had to play and delaying their home games until June is not exactly an option here. I had not hear of Austin's considering this, nor Harrisburg and the official Hartford proposal (by the scam artists) was to use Dillon. Point being: these are temp solutions, not exploding trends and the ticket-buying public (at large, not the supporters, obviously) has come to expect more out of its sportainment venues than these provide.
I agree with this. They don't pop up (no pun intended) anywhere near often enough for that kind of description. I hope they see some success at this venue, so we can see if the ownership can develop more permanent plans.
It's a decent location and not a ballpark. So two things are better right away. I will be interested to see it, but cannot get there until the third game. That may be for the best, considering.
Basically the 101 and the 202. Southeast corner of the Valley, just north of Tempe Marketplace, off McClintock. Pretty good spot for access, given the Valley's population center is just south of there and most of the money and soccer clubs seem to be in the East Valley. Close to ASU, good highway access. Public transportation does not get there just yet. Casino Arizona is, indeed, just northeast of the site, other side of the 101 and north of McKellips.
http://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2017/03/bahamas-making-case-for-usl-franchise/ Sorry if it already came up. Would this possibly influence PRFC to join as well?
https://www.facebook.com/PHXRisingFC/videos/748743778630553/ Stands, yes. Infrastructure, not so much.
Retractable roof, absolutely. But that's not going to happen with a soccer stadium unless someone wants to invest tens of millions of dollars. Which isn't going to happen for a USL team. As for a roof over the stands in this particular yard: ( a ) They're not going to play during the day during the summer. Just not going to happen. So there's no sun to shield you from because... ( b ) In June/July when the sun doesn't set until after 7:30, it's low enough to the point where a roof won't do much and the latest the sun sets here in the summer is 7:42. ( c ) A roof doesn't change the ambient temperature. I've been at games where it was 102 at kickoff, but the low humidity made it fine (you get used to it a bit here). Once the sun goes down and you don't have direct sunlight, you hydrate, it's fine. I was also at a game last year where it was about 105 or 106 at kickoff and it was really uncomfortable, even after the sun went down. And, again, a roof offers no temperature change. Build a dome with a retractable roof? Absolutely, sign me up. But even the renderings of the built-out facility that was part of their MLS bid don't show that. And while they might cover the stands at some point in the future for the USL team, a roof would not matter much at all for a team that plays in the summer at night.
The VAR tests are going on the road this year. Also some ESPN3 / ESPNU games scheduled. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...t-25-live-video-assistant-referee-experiments
Just bought tickets for a game in Phoenix and a game in St. Petersburg and the tickets in St. Pete were $10 cheaper. (They are not entirely comparable because of the arrangement in St. Pete but close. PHX's midfield tickets are $35, which, we'll see.)
For USL - that is killer. Spartan? Looks like a lot of details around it. How many stadiums are built adjacent to a golf course? Adds to cool factor. Looks easily expandable. Quite the investment. Hope is works out well.
But if ever expanded (enclosed) it will be intimidating (not that I expect that). Spartan for MLS or European standards - yes. But for USL it's frigging impressive.
But if ever expanded (enclosed) it will be intimidating (not that I expect that). Spartan for MLS or European standards - yes. But for USL it's frigging impressive.
I don't doubt that. Phoenix, that's REALLY spartan. What these yards mean more important than what they look like.