I stand by my statement. If the team wants to leave, they'll leave. But I'm confident in saying the NBA is higher priority for city residents than MLS. So if the residents are not knocking the doors down to keep the NBA team they have from moving, I doubt the city is going to build an SSS. However, for Sounders fans, it is quite a difference from the end of last year when the same owner was considering folding your team altogether, isn't it?
It doesn't matter if the NBA team is a higher priority or not. Because of I-91, there will NOT be a stadium built with public money. PERIOD!!!! It wouldn't matter if it were pointyball, NBA, MLB or anything else. Why do you think the Seattle Thunderbirds are moving to Kent?
You can't be serious. The city didn't want to foot the entire bill for a new arena because the Key is a newish arena that just happens to be in the same place and looks more or less like the old one. Also, the rhetoric from the Sonics went from "improve our lease" to "build us a new place to play or we'll move" basically as soon as Clay Clay bought the franchise. Few cities are willing to foot the entire bill for stadiums or arenas. Especially when the amount being asked for is more than that which was required to build the two huge stadia sitting down by Alaskan Way. And now, any stadium or arena built in Seattle would have to be built with state or county funds since city funds are now a non-starter thanks to the restrictions laid down by I-91.
Weird. You'd never know it by looking at the "pitch". Anyway. Congrats to Seattle, but I hope to hear stadium plans soon, private or otherwise. Keep Sounders as the name.
People will believe anything. How much is Ives getting paid to spread this rumor, or is he doing it for fun?
Definitely, Portland would be an ideal choice. My bet is Portland (not St. Louis) could be in by 2009, provided ownership is in place. Although the St. Louis owner has stated his intent to start play in 2009, realistically that will be difficult: after all, it was only a few weeks ago that the owners were granted their first approval for the stadium development (for annexation of the site), and it will likely take months to complete the remaining stops in the land use approval process (and maybe conduct a traffic study?). Then, they will need to hire contractors (and there are likely some remaining financing details to work out for the mixed-use components of the development). Even if everything is on an accelerated timeline, delays are inevitable (adding months or even years to the process), as shown by MLS stadium projects in Dallas, New York, DC and Salt Lake. Given all of that, 2010 sounds more realistic for St. Louis. So, here's how it could look: 2009: Seattle and Portland (16 clubs) 2010: St. Louis and Philadelphia (18 clubs) 2011-15: Montreal, Vancouver, New York and ??? (22 clubs)
Seattle S.C. I don't think MLS will expand to 22 teams. 20 would probably be the upper limit, especially with FIFA wanting leagues to be only 18 teams I think. If this is true congrats Seattle.
Have any of you been to qwest field and seen a soccer game there?...my guess is probably not, its's great for soccer and the best possible NFL stadium to play soccer in...Seattle does need a SSS but all things considered qwest field wont be a bad thing. As far as replacing the fieldturf with grass I doubt that is a possibility.
No doubt you make some good points about the difficulty of pulling off St. Louis by 2009 - but Portland? Don't those delaying factors apply equally to Portland? Plus a bunch more besides, like the lack of an MLS ownership group? Saying "provided ownership is in place" is like me saying I could fly to the moon, provided a spaceship is in place. That's a pretty big caveat. Anything can happen, but I just haven't heard or read anything substantial about Portland moving into MLS that soon.
All MLS possibilities for Portland are aimed at 2010, because the Timbers and Beavers (AAA Baseball) are locked into PGE Park until then and a buyout would be pricey. I know of at least two groups that are working on MLS bids for 2010.
QWest, IMO, is horrible for MLS. Sure, it may be a good field dimensions wise, but 20k in a 55k+ stadium just looks bad. If St. Louis and Philly are willing to build SSS they should get priority. Packed games at SSS on TV look fantastic and the atmosphere makes fans want to go. A sea of empty seats makes the atmosphere far less enthusiastic (only DCU pulls it off with consistency, and think how amazing the atmosphere would be if Barra Brava was behind the home goal and games were soldout everytime). I think making any exceptions for non-SSS MLS sides just because they're in the Pac NW is a bad idea. I think the San Jose moving circus is stupid as well, they failed once, why try again when markets exist that are salivating for MLS?
Another one besides the LA guys that were looking at Seattle? Well. Now I understand why some of the Portland people keep saying that Portland MLS is a real possibility. I'd thought the LA guys had cooled off their interest.
I wasn't counting the LA guys. From what I understand one group has Adidas behind it (who has their North American HQ here, and what a slap in the face of Portland-based Nike that would be), and I'm guessing the other group is being organized by current Timbers owner Merritt Paulson, though that's just a guess.
What failed in San Jose was the ability of their past owners to get a stadium deal. The new San Jose owners are well on the way to making this happen. The Earthquakes will be playing in their own SSS, while teams such as Houston, DC, and Chivas are still a drain on the league.
WAY TO GO SOUNDERS! I can't wait to watch a game in that VVVASSSSST open stadium with 4,000 people in it...