Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Don't know why NE, and NY, don't, since they both have FieldTurf, but KC is grass, which can be a pain to repaint, especially with all of that red they use in the endzones. Plus, some of the paint always remains on the grass, and can make it slippery.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) This thread is pure propaganda. Showing pictures of some of the worst turnouts (and a pre-game picture for FC Dallas) hardly proves the lack of need for a SSS. Can you imagine those crowds at Giants Stadium or Arrowhead Stadium? Oh, and a friendly with an international power is in no way a good estimate for what Seattle MLS is going to look like @ Qwest. I'm not saying the stadium wont work, just that this thread is rubbish.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Yes, it is propaganda. Much like the BS being spewed about the use of Qwest on several other threads on this site. It does prove that SSS's do not turn a small crowd into anything better. None of those photos look "better" because they are in a stadium that was built for that particular franchise.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I completely disagree. Those crowds in Giants stadium would look like such a joke... kinda like every single NYRB game. And even if teams do pull respectable crowds (DC, LA, TFC etc.) they'll still look like a joke... kinda like every NYRB game.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) So SSSophiles are also Attendancephiles? We pretty much know where people stand on this issue. We pretty much know MLS is headed to Qwest Field. Time for *both* sides to join hands in the wonder that will be Seattle MLS, and celebrate the Skittles rainbow. Or start looking at the pitch and not that stands. Or both. Or Something like that.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Sounderfan, for being confident in Seattle MLS you sure have a raging inferiority complex.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Huh? I think Qwest is awesome, Seattle will be an awesome MLS city...and pretty much insert awesomeness into all these forums. I guess if I HAD an inferiority complex, it would have to be an awesome one, though.
Re: Qwest Field soccer photos why is everyone worried we would not be able to fill qwest field? i know it wont happen for some ULY believe that soccer will outgrow the current SSS in my lifetime (i count on living another 70 years).
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) You did an excellent job of showing the poorest crowds at a couple of soccer stadiums that MLS has and a sold out crowd for what had to have been an international match of some sort at your NFL stadium. Got news for you: if you were to see an international game in Chicago at Soldier Field it would be sold out too! Case in point, USA-Mexico in the Gold Cup. You could also point to USA-England, Poland-Mexico, or Manchester United's match here a couple years back. Trust me, you NEED your own building to survive financially. You won't be packing your NFL stadium with 60k+ a night, just not going to happen in MLS right now, not even with Beckham (as LA discovered.) A smaller, more intimate, grass field, SOCCER stadium is much more conducive to the product that your potential owners want to put on the pitch...and you will all LOVE it as fans. The bottom line is, its better for the league to demand that teams have a SSS in place in the future. It makes them look better, like a more professional league, like having a soccer team is actually worth something instead of making it look like an also-ran and devaluing the sport in this country like the main stream media does. In the end, don't we all want what's best for soccer in America?
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) There is too much speculation on whether Qwest field would be a successful venue or not in MLS and for Seattle. Assuming that some Seattle ownership group gets the nod for an expansion franchise why not give them at least a chance in Qwest? From what BS forums would have you believe, they would be getting even footing and billing with their co inhabitants. And lets face it, businesses that don't make money don't last. Just ask the NASL.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) It's not just what these forums have been saying, it has been public statements from Qwest Field management. Also, even if they hadn't made those statements, it is written, in BLACK AND WHITE, in the charter of the Public Facilities District that owns Qwest, that an MLS franchise would be treated as an EQUAL to the Seahawks. Mean machine, if you need an explanation of what EQUAL means, here is a link for you: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Good for Qwest Field and the non-existant MLS franchise you currently have. We'll see how EQUAL you're treated when you're averaging 14-16k just like everyone else does. I'm telling you, those of us who have been around the league from the beginning know exactly how this is going to play out. While you may be given the same percentage of revenue from parking, concessions, etc., that does not, in fact, make you EQUAL to the Seahawks. You're talking about the difference between millions and millions of dollars in revenue from selling out every game they play, the sponsorship dollars coming in, the concessions and parking from 60k+ crowds versus a team that will likely LOSE money for the first five years it exists, if not longer. I know its hard for all you to wrap your heads around, but while you may get the same contract, you won't be EQUAL. Just not going to happen. Look, I'm all for Seattle getting a franchise. I think its a great market for soccer, it has a rich tradition right in line with the other candidates. For my money, I would like to see St. Louis in 2009 and Seattle right behind them in 2010. The only reason I give STL the nod is because they have a stadium ready to break ground. And don't mistake my words here...I'm not saying that Qwest wouldn't be a fair place to play, or even a good place....it just wouldn't be as good as if you had your own building. Trust me on this. You WANT a stadium. You should be DEMANDING your own facility.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I'm probably very much alone in this, but I do NOT want a stadium. I'm perfectly happy with Qwest. I won't be demanding anything.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Team first. Stadium next. It was good enough for Chicago to do it in that order, right? I DEMAND an MLS team!
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Thats right we demand a Team first, the whole stadium thing will play out but as of right now just give us a team, please! After that by all means start up the stadium Hoopla.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Perhaps we shouldn't be so trusting of these potential owners... I remember being told Qwest field would mean MLS in 2003 if we voted for it. I hope they really mean grass and no lines, but when the Seahawks are playing, I definitely can see us being put on the back burner.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) That promise was made by the, at the time, Commissioner of MLS, NOT the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, or First & Goal, who take care of the day to day operations of the stadium.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I understand your logic perfectly, and yes, it was good enough for 12 of the 13 teams in the league currently. I believe that 1998 and 2009 are totally different eras of the league though. We are in an era that had stadiums popping up all over. In 2008, 8 of the 14 teams will be playing in soccer stadiums and I believe the plans are at least in place for 3 more within the next few years. Again, I agree that Seattle should be getting a team, and soon, but I like the St. Louis proposal quite a bit better right now. I guess we'll have to wait 60-90 days and see if Garber agrees.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Things may not have changed as much as you'd hoped. San Jose and Houston are very recent examples of "no stadium, no problem" moves by MLS. In SJ's case it is clear that an SSS is promised. However, that club looks like it will start life anew in a college venue. In what way is that 'progress' for the league? I'd think starting in an actual major league facility would look better for a major league. There is what we *want* the league to have learned and accomplished, and then there is what we have *seen* it accomplish. Toronto stands alone as the expansion entry to come in with an SSS. It worked marvelously for them, and I hope the league can repeat that success. MLS brass have demonstrated willingness to ignore their own best advice in the recent past, though. Having said that, I by no means think MLS at Qwest is a 'step backwards' for the league. It would bring a fantastic venue and huge soccer market into the league. The other issues can be worked out in time.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) People like to "buy" what the league is selling concerning SSS. Your points are rather enlightening, however. These people who buy the SSS or nothing tripe probably also believe the surge is working in Iraq.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I've never been one to believe in "SSS or nothing." And I'll be the first to agree that the league sometimes says one thing and does another. I personally don't feel that going back to SJ in 2008 was a wise decision. We've seen them fail already, so I would have required a stadium in their case. Houston was different in a sense because they WERE a failing SJ club (off the field anyways) and they were sucking the league dry. While not ideal, they have been thrust into what I would consider a favorable situation in Houston. I know that AEG is still looking to come up with an owner for the Dynamo and one that will provide a stadium for that franchise is a key. For now, they're drawing fans, winning games and getting by, something that could not be said if they had stayed in SJ. I don't like blanket statements, I think everything should be handled case by case. In this instance, for me, if you look at the two proposals between St. Louis and Seattle, I think the league would be best suited to take St. Louis first. The fact of the matter is, they will have a facility where soccer will not just be an "equal" tenant, but THE tenant. The focus will be on soccer, all the time, for not only the stadium but for the entire community in Collinsville. I understand the reasons for your group of fans to want Qwest. I've never been myself, but I understand its in an ideal location with nightlife, right near the water, in a central location. Right? If so, that's probably why the Seahawks and the city put it there. My biggest concern with all of the SSS popping up is that when you look, only ONE of them is ideal. Toronto. They came in with a stadium (a sold out stadium mind you) in place before they ever played a game. That stadium is downtown. It's packed every night and even though they're not a great team, the fans are rabid. We'd all love for that to be the case, but I don't see MLS having that luxury in most US cities for at least another 5-10 years. So here are your scenarios as the commissioner: 1. The city that many people consider the best soccer city in the country and a stadium ready for opening day 2009. Its a new market that hasn't seen professional soccer since the early 80s, but has been a huge college soccer town and breading grown for American players. It has built in geographic rivalries with Chicago and Kansas City. A city that MLS probably should have gone to in the first place, but (rumor has it) was blocked by Lamar Hunt and his money wanting to put a team in his stadium in KC. A stadium proposal that if you don't take it now, might not be there again for a few years. 2. A city that already has a team, although its USL, and plans to play in a huge NFL venue. No plans to build a stadium in the near future. A city that has been begging for a team and will definitely support the team. A city that has an established soccer fan base and will certainly still be there a few years from now begging for a team even if they don't get one now. I ask you, what would you do if that was your choice, and you had no personal investment in either city except the long-term viability of the league?
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) As it sits, it is not an either/or situation. I believe that St. Louis will get a franchise. I also have the deepest gut feeling (along with some very promising comments from people within the Sounder organization) that Seattle will get a franchise for 2009. Seattle has not ruled out an SSS, but the location of any stadium would be more detrimental to drawing crowds than Qwest will ever be. The Northwest does not need another facility for concerts, X games etc. We are pretty well served in those type of facilities. Additional income to the franchise will be slim to none. We don't go to outdoor concerts when it's raining 8 months out of the year and the other four are right in the middle of the MLS season. The Sonics are leaving town, as it sits, because folks in the Northwest are NOT going to build a "specific" playpen for each and every franchise. We built Qwest for Soccer and Football. We are still paying for that investment. That is why Qwest is the most favorable option...... along with it's location and the fact that it is probably the nicest stadium in the country for any purpose. Safeco is a close second.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) While I have a hard time believing the commissioner will increase the teams by 3 in 2 years, I do understand your logic about not needing a play pen for every franchise in town. There are really only about 4 months for outdoor concerts in Chicago as well, and TP is able to use them for those purposes quite well. TP would not exist if not for the concerts, that's a certainty. As for being the nicest two stadiums in the country "for any purpose," I'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As I mentioned, I've never been. And I've heard good things. But I will not give any stadium that distinction until I've seen them all. Currently, Camden Yards and Jacobs Field are the two best ballparks that I've seen. A buddy of mine that lived in Seattle for two years had great things to say about Safeco, but also said that it runs right behind those two and San Francisco's park (I forget the name because it changes every year.) I will also say this, and I eluded to it earlier. I think the league is going to run into some problems if it expands too quickly here. Expanding into new markets only works if it can be done without deluding the product on the field. We already have guys like Logan Pause starting for us...if it gets more watered down than that, the neysayers will just get more ammunition that our product isn't worth going to see and spend money on. Like I said, I think SJ is a mistake. If it were me, it would be no team in 08. St. Louis in 09. Plan for an additional 2 teams by 2010 or 2012 (Seattle and Philly.) We need to make sure these rosters will be packed with enough quality players to go around.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Having been to PacBell (or SBC or AT&T or whatever it is), the Jake and Safeco, I would put PacBell a distant first, Safeco second and the Jake third. That said, I think SounderMan was talking about layout for the fans in terms of being able to watch the game on the field. There aren't many stadiums in the country (that I've seen, anyway) where you are as close to the action as you are at Qwest. That part of it is well-designed.