Seattle Sounders' GM Adrian Hanauer and an ownership conglomerate are ready for another MLS expansion bid. Front office sources of the current A-League side say Hanauer "has done all that he can do" to impress MLS brass. Also adding "all of the money is in place to make it happen." The source does say that MLS has put expansion on the "back burner" until the two new clubs are established. This, says the source, is frustrating for the Sounders group, who would love an "early announcement" of the next round of expansion choices. An early announcement would allow the current Sounders to market towards MLS while playing in the A-League in 2005. The current Seattle A-League club is proceeding in the dark about MLS's wishes or even preferences for the next round of expansion. "I wish they would make an announcement about Seattle in early 2005," the source added. "But for now it looks like we have to put Seattle MLS on the side and continue running and getting the word out about the A-League Sounders." The Sounders are in the middle of a season ticket renewal drive for the 2005 A-League season. "Everyone who renews their tickets asks the same thing," said the source: "What's up with MLS in Seattle?"
You know what Sounderfan, I've been vehemently against MLS in Seattle unless you guys have a solid stadium plan, but after reading up on a it a little more throroughly, I've changed my position. So long as Paul Allen gives an MLS side the same awesome deal on rent that he's giving the Sounders, then I'm all for an MLS team in Seattle in Qwest Field. I think that market is long overdue for some quality football and I think that you guys would really have an awesome, tight-run ship up there in Seattle. Now, regarding MLS making an announcement I actually think it's BETTER for you guys not to get an announcement for the simple fact that if you announce that you guys will be promoted to MLS before the season even starts, your attendance will go down significantly as no one will buy tickets until the next season, know what I mean? I do think that if you guys have everything in place and ready to go, that MLS should make an announcement around May-June, in the middle of the A-league season. I think that's the BEST time to make that announcement as the Seattle media will be all over the Sounders move up to MLS and that will in term increase attendance. Maybe have a few MLS clubs come up there for exhibitions too. I was supposed to have been in Seattle already going to UW but I decided it would be best for me to stay here at CU....but I want to work for Microsoft after I graduate and my girlfriend lives in Oregon, so I'll be moving to Seattle in a few years. It'll be really awesome to have a local team to root for!
I have a question. Would The Sounders just move up to the MLS?? I mean the Sounders name is solid! It would be a waste to leave it in the A-league. Hopefully you can give me some answers. Thanks
The answer is...Maybe! Much was made of comments earlier this year by Sounders GM/Owner Adrian Hanauer. In several interviews he said he would look for "a new brand" for a Seattle MLS club, perhaps keeping the current club colors, but dumping "Sounders." His feeling is that the city "needs something big" such as a new name, identity, etc., to stir interest in the MLS club that would come here. You might be able to guess the response of many SOUNDERS fans... http://soundercentral.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1075 My guess? "Sounders" is outta here when MLS arrives. Best "new name?" Emerald City SC Then fans can choose a nickname, like the "Gems," or hell, even "Sounders!" Hmmmm. "Emerald City Sounders." Nice.
Not hating or anything, but realistically, I think Seattle is now near the end of the list. Why? There are way too many west coast teams. That's why I say they should have given Seattle more time last expansion, but they gave it to chivas instead. I think Garber will be looking at adding an east coast team, and a central US team, my picks; Rochester and Detroit, but that will be for sure if they get their stadiums built on time. Of course Cleveland has also been mentioned.
disagree. east & west conferences will sit even at 6 teams each. pacific northwest is currently outside MLS's geographic footprint MLS wants in Seattle. MLS wants in Philadelphia. MLS is lukewarm at best about Cleveland. Has made little effort for Detroit. Rochester may or may not have the ownership in place for the big commitment of moving up.
First priority in any case is dealing with the SJ ordeal. You are jumping the gun with Philly, they have yet to make a reasonable expansion bid, and I doubt Houston is a huge priority, considering MLS has a team in Texas, and attendance has been pitiful, can't see it getting any better by giving Texas yet another team. Rochester, NY (realize it is in New York, that brings something to the table, i.e. Metros are in NJ) has been the city everybody has their eyes on, and if and when they get that stadium built, I don't think ownership will be hard to find.
Ownership is there (will control the stadium) in Rochester but noone's sure they want the financial commitment to MLS quite yet. Houston is a huge priority. That's why you hear the term Houston Earthquakes every other week all season. Highest ratings outside any MLS market from what I've heard. Mexican clubs willing to invest. Philly has the NFL stadium ready. It's up to the NFL owner to decide if he wants in (as MLS becomes near profitable he might). Temple is getting kicked out of the Big East next year and it's very unsure if they'll be able to afford being a tenant very long (though the city might have strong-armed Lurie into keeping a long-term deal). Rochester brings a sold-out SSS (not very big yet though). But doesn't have the market appeal many others do. If you read MLS press releases the last few years. Philly, Seattle, and Houston are the common thread.
The idea that Houston shouldn't get a team because it is in the same state as Dallas is odd. I don't know where it came from. It would be easier to say that proximity to existing teams is a good reason to not put a team in Philly, since it is closer to both Hamilton and DC than Houston is to Dallas; or to put a team in Rochester because it is close to Hamilton and Columbus. I'm pretty sure that SJ and LA both existing have little negative effect on attendance. (In fact, it seems to run the other way, as it likely would with Dallas and Houston.)
Get ready to complain about a moderator calling your post "absolutely stupid." Because I'm calling your post absolutely stupid.
That would be awesome, but like I said before I don't think it would be wise for the Seattle FO to make an announcement like that before their season starts. I just think that'll have a detrimental effect on attendance since everyone will be waiting for MLS to come to town. And let's hope to god that Cleveland isn't getting a team! Detroit or Houston perhaps?
The early "Cleveland announcement" was obviously a mistake/misstep. The difference in Seattle would be that we have an outdoor team in play, one that needs some kind of big news for an attendance boost. I would wager that season ticket sales would jump at least 300% for the 2005 A-League Sounders if it were announced that Seattle was joining MLS in 2006. Right now most of us estimate the club has about 1,000 season ticket holders. So, that's a major jump, if it played out that way. However, no need to make any noise at all until ALL SIDES are completely sure, and the ink is drying on the various contracts. MLS might be sure about Seattle, but perhaps they are waiting for an expansion partner to join in from Philly, Rochester, San Antonio or Detroit. Or, maybe MLS isn't sure about Seattle at all. On with running/supporting our A-League team we go...
You missed my point. Cleveland was awarded a team in an official announcement prior to last season's MLS Cup.
Which struck me as odd. I didn't then and still don't understand why Cleveland is even a top 20 choice at this point. Philly I get. Houston I get. San Antonio I get. Seattle ditto. Just what is the attraction with Cleveland? Seattle simply HAS to be added, then I'd say Houston. The next round I'd say think about Rochester and a city du jour.
I guess we could rate Cleveland as an Un-Dead Expansion Bid. Kind of like a zombie in one of those "Day of the Dead" movies, lurching around looking for a brain to eat. Nothing can kill it. I would guess the MLS priority list to look like this: (1) Deal with the San Jose situation (2) See how Chivas USA does (3) See how ReAl Salt Lake does (4) Check the quality of play to see that it hasn't been diluted (5) Pick the next expansion teams from the list of qualified ownership groups with good stadium deals. (and not worry about which cities they are in)
MLS has very little, if any, interest in moving into new NFL stadiums with a down-sized capacity. However, in Philly's case, the Linc is even less viable than other places they might consider (like Seattle's and Houston's NFL stadiums) because the field cannot be configured to be 70 yards wide. Even though FIFA regulations permit you to play on a narrower field than that, nobody in MLS wants to willingly move to more narrow fields. They actually are looking for fields that exceed the FIFA minimums... hence why CCS, HDC and all the new SSS' planned are at least 75 yards wide. MLS will NEVER play in the Linc. Give it up. Philly lost its chance when they agreed to the Eagles' desire to make the field so narrow. If Philly wants a team, they will need an I/O and a new SSS.
Kind of sucks when the owner that wanted a franchise dies!! Probably worked out well. can you imagine if they were deep into putting a team and franchise office together and he kicked the bucket then???
Pretty difficult question here... oh wait.... They had someone who was willing and wanted to invest in MLS. Now? I dunno, tidbits every now and then about the deceased-possible-owner's kin picking up the pieces, but I don't know how strong that is. And Oh, and Cleveland's metro is currently a decent size market too.