Last week I wrote an e-mail to the Public Stadium Authority asking for specifics about the contract with First and Goal Inc. to manage Qwest Field. I wanted to know what that contract says about the question of MLS. I also wanted to know what the stadium authority's responsibility is toward supporting soccer given the original "football/soccer" stadium wording in the ballot measure that voters approved to build the stadium. To their credit I received the following E-mail response this afternoon without having to file requests for public records, which is a lengthy and often frustrating proposition. Dear Scott, Thank you for your inquiry regarding a Major League Soccer team playing at Qwest Field. In developing Qwest Field, the PSA Board of Directors worked to ensure that the facility was designed to accommodate both football and soccer. For example, the Board and First & Goal agreed on some modifications to the design of the stadium to improve the soccer configuration of the field, sight lines and camera angles. In addition, in approving the installation of FieldTurf, the Board did not allow the installation of permanent football lines on the turf but rather required the use of temporary lines so the field surface could accommodate soccer. If MLS requires natural grass, First & Goal will be required to change out the field to natural grass. Additionally, Section 8.10 of the Lease requires First & Goal Inc. to “actively support efforts to bring a major league soccer team to play soccer games in the Stadium, either as a home team based in Seattle or as a visiting team”. Outlined below are the responses to your specific questions. What is the PSA's responsibility toward professional soccer? The PSA Board of Directors is excited about the possibility of having a Seattle MLS team and will support the efforts of a qualified ownership group to bring First Division professional soccer to Seattle. However, the PSA has granted and delegated the responsibility for management, marketing, operation, maintenance and use of the stadium and exhibition center to First & Goal, Inc. under a 30 year Master Lease. The PSA has an oversight role but no direct involvement in decisions regarding the use of Qwest Field. Are there stipulations in the original state referendum that provide for special consideration in support of MLS soccer? The referendum included language which defines the “stadium and exhibition center” as an “open-air stadium suitable for national football league football and for Olympic and world cup soccer.” The referendum also included a requirement for any net profits from World Cup soccer to be deposited into the State Tourism Account. It does not, however, include any provisions related to Major League Soccer. If an MLS ownership group were to approach First & Goal and the PSA would they too just be renters? Or does a professional soccer group earn a place beside First & Goal as operator in terms of soccer events? That depends on the relationship, if any, that is created between the stadium operator and the MLS team. Consistent with Referendum 48, the PSA entered into a long term lease with First & Goal to operate Qwest Field. As the sole master tenant of the facility, First & Goal is allowed to entered into sub-leases with other tenants. If a Major League Soccer team is placed in Seattle and the team operators only negotiate a lease arrangement with First & Goal, then they would be a sub-tenant of First & Goal Inc. and would have their own specific agreement with First & Goal. Do the contracts in place allow a soccer ownership to share in revenues from the sale of luxury boxes, concessions, parking and other revenue streams? Consistent with the Referendum, under the terms and conditions of our Master Lease Agreement, First & Goal Inc. retains all revenues derived from the operation of the stadium and event center with a few exceptions specifically outlined in the Lease. Revenue retained by a Major League Soccer Team ownership group would be negotiated with First & Goal Inc. Thank you again for your inquiry.
Scott, very masterful work. I am very surprised at some of the answers. They were very straightforward and honest. I like to see that out of politicians. Great work with formulating the questions, too. BTW - check your inbox.
Great job in getting several questions answered. Too bad all the out of town nay sayers will completely ignore all the positive points and focus on the fact that First and Goal will have to be negotiated with. I think the Roth/Hanauer group would be smart to consider buying into the Qwest field investment. That would allow them to negotiate with the PSA in a similar fashion to what First and Goal has done. I think a Real grass surface is a distinct possibility after reading that post. Excellent work Scott.
No problem. Now that I've opened a line of communication (and believe me, I was very careful to thank them profusely for cooperating), I think we should brainstorm whether there are any other questions we want asked. I don't want to go back to the well too often and become a pest that they want to ignore or worse. But if there are other specifics you guys think we should know about, let me know and we'll try to put together a short list of follow ups. I too was suprised and happy about some of what I read. Not so happy about other parts. It would be much more advantageous to whomever tries to bring MLS here if they weren't so far removed from the possibilities of revenues at Qwest. I think we are reliant on a super-cooperative First and Goal to make it work. To that end I also may draft a letter to Tim Lieweke this weekend thanking him for support of the Sounders, urging his organization to make MLS doable here by generously sharing revenues, and reminding him of the past support soccer fans have shown toward the referendum that got Qwest Field built in the first place. Can't hurt.
I can't give details yet, but there are several behind-the-scenes things going on between Seattle MLS and the Seattle Seahawks. So, it looks like First and Goal are indeed well onboard with this! Your letter to F & G might contain a 'thank you' for consideration and a 'please keep it up,' as well.
Also read it this way: "and they have the right to negotiate shared revenues with subleased tenants." And that is exactly what has happened.