I like the idea of baby steps 18k that can expand to 25k+. This allows for the fan base to grow with the team. Its year one all over again, the general public doesnt really even know that the Quakes are back, their are people bitter they left, and then theres those who are just starting to warm up. With time comes growth for both the fans and the team.
Sorry, I meant unique to this country. And although Toyota Park is a fine stadium, the seating design, (as FUAEG pointed out with his picture) is not like Anfield.
15K seats will be too small in three years, maybe 15K would be the right size if the thing were built today but in three years with a couple goal scorers, some decent marketing, and a quaility stadium with no obstructed views they will sell it out easily for many of the games. The demand to watch soccer in a great stadium will be much more than it is in BS. If they build it at 15K they will need to add another 5K three years after the first season in my opinon.
One major concern with a 15k stadium has not yet been mentioned: Building a 15,000 seat stadium will severely impact our ability to court and sign world-class players. I highly doubt that high-caliber players like David Beckham, Thierry Henry, or Ronaldo would ever consider coming to play for a team whose rinky-dink grounds hold fewer people than a minor league baseball stadium. I doubt that even marquee American players, like Brian McBride, Freddy Adu, or Jozy Altidore would turn down the green fields of Europe to play in such a small facility. And comparably speaking, yes, the opportunity to play at a beautiful 25k-35k Red Bull Park, DC United Stadium, HDC, or Qwest Field seems far more attractive. Lets face it: many big-name players are about making a brand of themselves. That includes high salaries and sponsorship payoffs. A 15,000 seat stadium will not attract anywhere near the kind of sponsorship funding that a proper 18-25k stadium would. Aside from a player's willingness to sign and play in such a small ground, one must consider the club's ability to afford top-notch talent if the maximum number of fans possible at any given game is 15,000. I understand the economics behind packing the house and keeping ticket prices at a premium. But having such a small stadium also inhibits the club's ability to expand it's fan base and it's global image beyond those that can afford tickets or are willing to shell out for season tickets (which, assumedly, would approach half to three quarters of all tickets sold in a brand new 15k stadium). In the light of these facts, and those presented earlier, 18k should be the absolute minimum capacity considered, with room for expansion a likely necessary option.
I didn't think my original post would come under such scrutiny and a lot of good points have been made in this debate of what is the right number for a stadium. Our historical average has really been 13 K, so 15 K sounds pretty fair for average attendance. I, for one, am not sure that building a stadium to a capacity that makes every game a sellout right away is the way to go. I don't want to see half empty stadiums but designing for some growth makes sense. Maybe the expected OOTB average should be somewhere between 75-80% of capacity though I am not sure what that number should be. It seems short sighted to build the stadium that little room to grow. What about the historical bump for a team moving to a new stadium? Only Dallas and the Galaxy have shown more than a 2 K increase in average attendance when comparing the historical averages before and after the new stadium. I realize that this analysis is rather simplistic and does not take into account a lot of things that have been used to report attendance but probably directionally accurate enough. At least I hope the designers have a way to add more seating in the future if needed. I still think building a stadium with only 15 K capacity is short sighted but if the team is looking to maintain a shoestring budget, do minimal marketing and not sign a DP then I would agree that 15 K is more than enough since that approach will not bring out more of the fans sitting on the fence with a million other things to do. I guess BS will let any dick have a blog.
Well said Don. The low attendance records were because of a marketing budget of $0. Once we get sponsors, such as KFC (kickin' for chicken) we definitely fill up a 20,000 seat stadium easily in this area. It might take a couple of years, but after that, we'll be a hot ticket item such as the sharks. We are starting to get exposure, so we can only grow bigger from here.
Right now I'm wondering how many people there still are in the Bay Area who can say, "Is that right? There's professional soccer in the United States?" Questions I have heard in more than one instance.
I think that one must be careful when making attendance predictions based upon past Quakes attendance. This is not to say that those numbers are innacurate (if anything, the post-2001 numbers were probably under-reported). The thing is, that the tickets prices were really low. The tickets were priced as if the accidental owner didn't care about the future of the team and was looking merely to prove it couldn't make money and, in so doing, justify moving it to another location. I $12 per game for season tickets fore sideline seats at Spartan from 1997 through 2005. It was an absolute bargain and I was careful to appreciate it then because I knew it wouldn't last. Now we have solid ownership that is going to make a go of it as a business and will price the tickets accordingly. The new ownership is not going to be selling tickets to the new stadium for as little as $12 bucks a game and anyone thinking that it would (or should) is not being realistic. This will mean that some people can't / won't pay the ticket prices. Just look at all the complaining on these boards from hardcore fans about prices and you should be convinced that casual fans will be harder to attract than before. For those that get hooked, however, it will be a great fan experience and be worth every penny-- especially given that it will still be a huge bargain over the other professional sports (paid for your own hockey ticket recently?). I don't think that the new ownership plans to expand the fan base such that any of 30,000 people in the bay area will be clamoring to buy a $25 ticket at any given time. I'd guess that the Sharks have a core fan base of less than 30,000 people (e.g. people who pay to go to more than 3 games a years). The Quakes, even with a new stadium, will be lucky in the early years to have 10,000 people who fit that description). I think 15k for a stadium is about right. Anyone who thinks that is too low should revisit the topic next weekend and the Quakes fail to sell out their 10,000 seat stadium. Anything more than 15,000 seats for the new stadium is ambitous (perhaps not wildly so, but ambitous nonetheless). I'd like to the 18,000 to 20,000 so that we could get the non-MLS events and because it would be fun to have that many people at the 2 or 3 sellouts per year (the Galaxy games and/or the AYSO ticket games, etc.). The idea that the Quakes could plan on filling a 20,000 seat stadium on a regular basis while charging going rates for professional soccer is, at this point, far from a sure thing. People need to chill about what Lew Wolff should and should not do. If he gets a stadium of any size built in SJ where you and I can go see professional soccer, he'll be in uncharted territory and will have accomplished far more than I would have thought possible during most of the last 12 years. In the meantime, enjoy the amazing sightlines at Buck Shaw (just don't sit in the first 5 rows, plan on eating anything during the game, or try to get a beer) and be HAPPY that we have games to watch!
Stop listening to people who judge matters by the "right now." Thirty years ago, there was no NHL in the Bay Area because the Seals (remember them?) had just decamped to Cleveland. Who would have predicted the NHL's return after the original debacle? Thirty years ago, the Soviet Union (remember it?) was one of two superpowers on the planet. Thirty years ago, no one, save perhaps Al Gore (remember him?), could have even predicted that eventually soccer fans would be debating online the future of American professional soccer -- not because there was not American professional soccer but because there was no such thing as "online." I don't know what the world will look like in 30 years, but I am willing to bet that billionaire Americans will have an over-sized say in the matter.
and yet, the guy sitting behind me on Saturday night kept telling his daughter he would take her to the bathroom at the end of the 'quarter' and wondering if the Quakes would score any 'points.' He also commented that 'these soccer players run a lot.' OK, he came out to the game. I give him credit for that. Still, as Albany mentions, there's a lot of people, even here in the Bay Area, who don't know there is a team or don't care. Don't underestimate how tough it is to sell tickets to professional soccer. Tony
I saw this interview during the game, but I was impressed with Lew. I don't mind a 15K stadium if that's what he decides. I'll still go to games. And that remark about soccer not yet being profitable is just that...Lew has lost money so far. It's a long-term investment for him, so that's okay...but let's not all get bent out of shape because he's lost money and he admits it in a joking way... Still, I'm just happy to have my Quakes back...even when they tie, it's better than watching Ronaldo score a hattrick. And the best part? We have 2 stars above our crest...how many do the revs have? the crew? the fire? the rapids or ChivasUSA? Ah, the undeniable grace and beauty of our expansion team.
I'm not sure this is a good example. Here is someone that appears to be not familiar with soccer, but yet is attending a game. How was this a tough sale? There are a lot of people who know about soccer and the Quakes. Geez, shall we bring up the Sharks again? Hockey in California. Yet, somehow they are doing well. With a new stadium, professional operations, and a good fan experience, they will have an easier time selling tickets. Plus, they already have the hooks into the local AYSO and CYSA clubs in order to draw them to games. Also, you live in an area with a lot of foreign nationals who are interested in soccer. As MLS brings in more names players in the next 5-10 years, you will have more of them coming to the league. Plus, if you can get the level of play to increase to the point that hard core fans (Eurosnobs), you have another demographic who will start to attend. So, yes, it's hard to sell tickets to any event in the Bay Area, but there are plenty of people who can be drawn into attending Quakes games.
The concern isn't a 15K stadium. The concern is what Wolff would do if/when the Quakes outgrow that stadium. And the undercurrent of this whole thread is the very palpable fear that instead of expanding he would a) raise prices or b) continue the multi-venue road show in perpetuity or b) both. If that's the probability, then yes, 15K is too small and fans are going to need to make that clear with their wallets.
Well said...I am old enough to remember the only "fix" you could get was watching "Soccer made in Germany" for one hour on PBS with Toby Charles doing the highlights. Yes there were problems, and opportunities lost...Clippers, Stompers, Golden Gate Gales, Earthquakes, Clash and so on. Now soccer is stronger than it's ever been..look at the opportunities to watch the beautiful game on television. Who would have though as little as 10 years ago, there would be a soccer channel (FSC). So I believe although we may not be happy with everything, and our expectations are high, at least be thankful for what we have, and instead of getting ticked off over some things...think of positive ways to make it better. We have no where to go but up, and if we pull in the same direction, we'll get there faster.
What I was trying to say is that the marketing of the Quakes is still not what I think it should be. Maybe Lew & Co. are doing a great job of marketing, but I'm still wondering.
15k and expandable sounds reasonable to me. I get the impression that some of you just like to watch soccer with a bunch of empty seats as a backdrop. I like full stadiums and when demand warrants it expand the stadium. What I don't like is watching a game where there are more empty seats than people in the seats.
So would they rather play in a 25,000 seater with a crowd of 12,000? We need to get people to recognize that we have a team before we start to believe we're going to be averageing 20,000 + per game. I believe the stadium will offer room to make it expandable if called for. Lew isn't stupid, and I doubt he would pour a major amount of money into a stadium that has the chance of becoming redundant within 3 years.
wow. wtf is with this? you should freaking be thanking the guy that we have a freaking team. ~ ~ ~ hate lew? hate him for what he hasn't done? ...you should really look at what he has done. if thats not enough... maybe you should have gone to houston? ~~~~ seriously... i can live without beer, or i can live spending that extra 3 dollars. i can live without a tailgate, or travel a half mile to meet up with a bunch of quake fans at some pub. i can live watching quakes in BS, and i can live watching them in a 5k stadium (if necessary). but one thing for sure... i dont think i could have lived another year without quakes. we love lew wolff, we dooooo we love lew wolff, we dooooo we love lew wolff, we dooooo ohhhhh lew wolff we love you!!!!!! oh, and in case you guys didn't already know, theres professional soccer in the bay area.
Amazing that the man goes from Saint to Devil because he's got a better grip on your attendance and ticket purchasing habits of the fanbase as a whole than the clowns around BS that represent a minority of the real fanbase I don't know, I don't live in Chicago. That being said, the US has a markedly different set of accessibility, building/construction & emergency egress codes than the UK does and that the seats at TP were placed at near the lowest limit, around 4' above the playing surface, that was allowed by the adopted codes of the time. I doubt that you'll be able to do much better since the 3 major code councils in the US have effectively merged their codes and most urban governments have adopted the 2003 or 2006 edition of the ICC codes. Plenty If providing facts and understanding that it takes selling an average of 2000 more seats every game to get to the pretend average that dickbreath was working with makes me and asshole, then that's what I am, armed with facts. What about a monorail? +1 - Ask Seattle what sitting on their ass is costing them. Nor do any of the most optimistic beancounters Why do you think that when even after your two championship seasons, you couldn't so more than 13K? What were the ratings for the last Women's World Cup? Good luck trying to recreate Anfield in the US. WOW - it's actually worse than the old days. even candystriper wasn't this deluded and she had access to all kinds of meds Architect's love people like you. We really do. You know what, I'm betting Lew has already calculated this. And you know what, 13,000 is right around 90% capacity. Don't bet on it scooter If San Jose really has a million more things to do, then it's probably the wrong place for soccer. The management has to like it Someone has to reign you idiots in... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight More likely, he can finance the expansion off of higher ticket prices IF you guys manage to sell it out.