If you ask each decent MLS fan if its a good idea to bring a new team to the league without a SSS the anwser will probably be a big NOOOOOOOOOOO. However dont count on it. MLS is "proud" to introduce Seatle as the new franchise team as soon as 2009 without a SSS of course. The samething is being done in San Jose, but now its too late to stop them since the team is about to make its debut. If the PHillip new team is coming in 2010 or 2011 why not wait to secure that Seatle is also going to be playing at a SSS?????. At the same time, we will be growing in pairs. We still have time to stop this catastrophic idea of bringing a team to Seatle to play in a cavernaculous football stadium.
If we wait for Phillip, what about Terrance? Or should they both wait for Canada to form its own league?
Um, isn't Qwest Field designed from the ground up to accommodate both soccer and gridiron, as well as being owned by the owners of the new Seattle MLS team - and from what I have heard, had MLS input when the ground was being built in the first place?
As long as one of their owners also owns (or however that works) Qwest field, why in the world does it matter whether or not they have their own SSS? They're not losing any money by playing there. Despite what you may believe, the reason that the MLS stresses SSS's is to create financial security for the teams. Granted, an SSS does greatly enhance the overall atmosphere, but that's not the main reason we have them. I do think that nearly every team should come in with one. But, Seattle is a different situation. The way that they are going to have it tarped off is going to look classy. My ONLY qualm with Qwest is that it's field turf. I'd prefer grass. But, beggers can't be choosers.
This is exactly our objective, but some people dont care then they say they love the league. They wash out their cosciences with a couple of dollars of ingratitude and mediocrity.
You mean like Team Energy Drink? They are the epitome of mediocrity. You New York guys can boycott Seattle all you want.........you barely support you own club.
True, we dont support a club that plays in an extremely big football stadium and that is why we lost interest. I will be buying my season tickets again once our new SSS stadium is ready. Got u man.
I understand the reasons for Seattle and using Qwest field. It makes sense for them to do it from a financial end. At the end of the day MLS is trying to get all teams into a SSS and some will argue Qwest is a hybrid because it was designed with soccer in mind. I would have liked the team to move into a SSS and while that is being build use Qwest but it really does make sense to use Qwest even though most people would have prefeared a SSS. Ps. isnt this an argument that has been pounded to death?
After watching the Pan Pacific Tournament, I hope the field can hold up. That field in Hawaii looked like like crap and the ball took some wierd bounces on the field. If you read other posts you will see that the real reason that Seattle got the team is because they have the backing of a billionaire and Drew Carey.
From 1925 to 1973, the New York Football Giants played in two BSS (Baseball Specific Stadiums): The Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium. For two years after that they played at a college football stadium (Yale Bowl), and a multi-use facility (Shea) before finally taking root in their own stadium in 1976. The Chicago Bears played almost fifty years of their storied history at Wrigley Field. The Detroit Lions played almost 35 years in Tiger Stadium. How many early season NFL games have you watched with the players running on the infield dirt from a baseball field? While we'd all like to see every MLS club in its own stadium right now, we're way ahead of the game compared to even the now mighty NFL at roughly the same stage. We already have a majority of teams with their own owner-controlled stadiums, or well on their way to having them in the short term. That's pretty good progress for such a young league.
I don't know, but the Latinosnobs won't be happy until Rodrigo & Gabriela play Stairway. [youtube]vNc5o9TU0t0[/youtube]
Exactly how is this boycott going to work anyway? Are you going to not show up and support your local team when Seattle comes to town? Or does it mean that you're not going to fly to Seattle to support your club when they come into town to play Seattle? Really, how many visiting supporters would we really expect anyway? I fail to see how this supposed boycott amounts to anything more than yet another BigSoccer ego circle jerk.
a jerk that really cares about the future of the league and someone who has experienced watching games at a football stadium and seeing people leaving for this reason. I dont want this to happen in Seatle. I agree with having a team in Seatle, but not without a SSS.
A couple of gay fellas that met at a RedBulls game. They had the whole stadium to themselves to get to know each other. Faith & Family Night, I believe
Boycott all you want. i wont miss you while I'm enjoying my season tickets and watching first division soccer in person. i don't care If they played in a giant salad bowl the fact that I get to watch soccer in the city I live in is all that matters.
=========== I dislike Qwest because it goes against everything we were told (SSS or bust) I would accept it, if grass were put in. (Toronto needs to also) I don't really care the owners have money or own the stadium, I still feel the league lied to us.. Toronto coming in with a stadium from the get go, was good. Just needs grass. Appears Phili will come in the same way- good San Jose ok- grass, no football stadium as a temp. ok until new place up Kansas City- as long as their new deal goes through, I will forgive them plaing in a baseball stadium (heck DC does/did) = Seattle is as bad as New England. Big, souless NFL stadiums , with fake turf. When the other 14 teams are in SSS and 13 on grass, these two places will really stand-out