Just One More Reason for SSS

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by JoeW, Oct 16, 2007.

  1. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2006
    The issue is who controls the venue. Not just control over revenue streams, but also control over scheduling so that the best slots are for MLS games and TV needs, not MLB or NFL teams or made for TV sports events. (Colorado was even playing second fiddle to Lacrosse in their final season at Invesco Field).

    Whatever happens at the HDC, AEG has done it to themselves and benefits from it financially.
     
  2. JoeW

    JoeW New Member

    Apr 19, 2001
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Absolutely. Just like someone could host a HS state football championship in a SSS. But DC United's ownership made it pretty clear in their comments that if it were up to them, this wouldn't have happened. Or to put it another way, "sure, we'll rent the stadium out for stuff. As long as it's in the off-season. Or as long as you don't touch, change or impair the field in any way".

    A few folks have posted in other threads "why does DCU need a SSS b/c they have RFK all to themselves?" Having done work for the Washington Nationals, I can assure you that the stadium is falling apart on the infrastructure part--leaks everywhere. The DC Mayor's comment after the Nationals finished their season was that "we'll be taking a wrecking ball to RFK soon" (evidently forgetting that the stadium still had a tenant).

    So for all the reasons why SSS make sense, being able to control who goes into to mess up your field (or doesn't go in) needs to be re-emphasized.
     
  3. Soccerdude redded

    Oct 14, 1999
    NY
    That Mayor is a moron.
     
  4. SideshowBob

    SideshowBob Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Northern VA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is the big salient point and the one that is getting lost in all the "is SSS really the right term" crap arguments. As long as it is a stadium designed to properly fit soccer and the MLS owners have control over scheduling and all the revenue streams, it is good for the MLS team. Qwest may fill the first half of that fine, but where it is lacking is the latter.

    (And don't talk abou Paul Allen's involvement unless you think that money generated by the Seahawks and concerts/other events will be poured into running the Sounders with the Sounders keeping all of their self generated revenues. That is what it means for an MLS team to have a SSS.)
     
  5. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    JoeW - This Joe vs. Pro thing going on this week, probably has been in the works for a while, don't you think? I doubt that all of a sudden, RFK was asked to be a venue for the show.
     
  6. SideshowBob

    SideshowBob Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Northern VA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed, but the point isn't how long it's been known. It's that DCU doesn't have any sort of control in that sort of thing given that they are a tenent. Furthemore, given that they are a tenent and not an owner, they make no money off of the Joe vs. Pro thing.

    IOW, DCU probably complained about it when it was first scheduled, but had no power/influence to do anything about it.
     
  7. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    No one is arguing whether DC United should have its own stadium. It is the use of the superlative adjective that some of us have objection to.
     
  8. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh really?
     
  9. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If by "punked," you mean "all the revenues from the football games except for the ticket sales," then yes, FCD is getting punked.
     
  10. SideshowBob

    SideshowBob Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Northern VA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I understand. And it's a stupid debate. When the term "SSS" is used, it means a certain thing -- a stadium purpose built to host soccer, but potentially able to host other events -- and people are arguing over some silly nomenclature debate instead of the practical aspects. MLS teams need SSS's to be financially viable -- stadiums with the appropriate size for the game (both the playing field and seating capacity) plus revenue and scheduling controlled by the MLS team. The name used to describe this is irrelevent.
     
  11. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not only that, but in exchange for giving the school district rent-free use of the stadium on Friday and Saturday nights, HSG gets all the concessions and parking and whatever other revenues are generated at the games except for the ticket sales.

    For that, I can put up with a few faded football lines.
     
  12. gregro

    gregro New Member

    Sep 1, 2007
    The Emerald City
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are incorrect sir. Qwest field can be expanded to meet the requirements. Also, During International friendlies, Real grass was trucked in. Frankley, I wish they would have kept the real grass.
     
  13. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    No one is arguing about financial viability. Let's put it this way, if it is called just a stadium, does it make it any less financially viable for an MLS franchise? Is there a certain provision in the tax code that gives teams a tax break if they call it an SSS? You think the debate is stupid. Well, for some of us, we think the term is stupid. And it is misleading because each and everytime the league brags about one of its SSS, fans of the league are led to believe that their team will have an exclusive stadium. It is the league that creates those expectations with its silly nomenclature. Do we expect an MLS team to build a stadium that will limit the width to 50 yards? Are we, or maybe the league, that stupid that if it is not referred to as soccer specific, perhaps the general contractor building the stadium might screw it up? No one is against MLS teams owning/controlling their own stadiums. So why is it that some of you have to bring this up each time there is a debate concerning the idiotic term knows as SSS?
     
  14. gregro

    gregro New Member

    Sep 1, 2007
    The Emerald City
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The business model of MLS teams owning their own stadiums is similar to Football and Baseball. If you own your own stadiums, you basically get the revenues from events, consessions, parking etc. Hosting other events when the stadium is not in use by the team is another way to create a revenue stream for the MLS teams

    I really do think that the more stadiums that the individual MLS teams own the better for the league.

    In the case with Qwest, the owner and the city own the stadium, so financially it makes great sense for MLS. If Paul Allen were not the owner and the circumstances were different, I think an SSS would have been the better option.

    I think Qwest is going to be great. Let's wait and see how it works out before making judgements. If it does not work out then a SSS will be an option on the long term.
     
  15. KnucklesBuchanan

    Jul 12, 2007
    Section 149
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    At this point, the only bullet left in the argument against Qwest is its size. Yes, the pitch at Qwest meets FIFA standards. It was designed with precisely that in mind. I realize that everyone loves to roll their eyes and snort in disgust when that is mentioned, but that doesn't change the truth of the statement. The size of the available playing surface was designed to accommodate international games.
     
  16. SideshowBob

    SideshowBob Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Northern VA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    :rolleyes: Look, the term is just a term to mean a certain thing. You seem upset because it means something different than what you think it should mean. So, what? Get over it and realize that the term means. The debate over the name is stupid ebcause it clouds the issue over what is actually important -- that MLS teams ahve their own stadiums that properly accomodate soccer (both in terms of field size and proper seating capacity) and in which they control revenue streams.

    SSS simply means a stadium purpose built for playing soccer. That's all. It means the primary tenent is meant to be soccer. It means nothing about soccer being an exclusive tenent.

    I hear terms like "baseball stadium" and "football stadium" too, yet I've seen concerts in both types of stadiums. It doesn't mean that those terms are wrong.

    Well, that's the fans fault for beleiving the wrong thing and having poor expectations. I don't think MLS is being intentionally deceptive in this.

    Becuase it's simply a name and doesn't affect anything. What does affect things is whether MLS teams control the venue in terms of scheduling and revenue. They could call it "Stadium built for soccer but able to host a variety of revenue producing events" if they want to be more accurate, I suppose, but it's a tad more unwieldy so I think they go with something a bit crisper and concise.

    Look, I have no problem if they instead used the term "soccer stadium" for these new venues -- that's probably what I'd call them -- but my point is that this thread has gotten way off top of the original poster who made an important and salient point about how MLS teams can be screwed by not controlling scheduling (or revenue for that matter).
     
  17. SideshowBob

    SideshowBob Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Northern VA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Unless the Sounders will be collecting rent and ancillary revenues from when the Seahawks and other events use Qwest, then that is far from the "only bullet" in the argument.

    I don't think people trumpting Qwest really seem to understand why only a handful of MLS teams are profitable and how all of those teams are playing in SSS's. Part of it has to do with costs and revenues at MLS events themselves, true, but a huge part of it has to do with revenues that are generated in the venues by other events that the MLS team gets to keep. That is what makes SSS's such a huge financial boon.
     
  18. SYoshonis

    SYoshonis Member+

    Jun 8, 2000
    Manistee, Michigan
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You know, you'd think that those who take such offense at the football lines on a soccer field, which to many of them symbolizes soccer's second-class status, would rejoice in the fact that in this case, it's the exact opposite: Football is the secondary sport in a soccer stadium.

    If they wanted to refrain from complaining, that is.
     
  19. gregro

    gregro New Member

    Sep 1, 2007
    The Emerald City
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can't argue with your points. Having your own stadium where you are the primary tennant is definitley the optimum sitution for the reasons stated.

    I do think that the agreements being worked on between, Paul Allen and MLS etc is going be very favorable to the league.

    One thing to remember is that as great as it is to have a SSS, they still cost a lot of money to build so on the short term the teams don't necessarily reap all of the benefits because the stadiums have to be paid for.

    The thing about Qwest is that it is already built so MLS Seattle does not have to put out a large amount of $$ on the front end to get up and running.
     
  20. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    SideshowBob - Again, there is no debate concerning MLS teams control over their venues. I don't know how anyone having objection to a stupid, misleading nomenclature as being against MLS teams owning or controlling the stadiums they play in. It does not cloud anything at all. Why is it that you can't get over some of us not liking the silly term? As for fans having the wrong expectations of what an SSS is suppose to be, blame that on the marketing gurus of MLS. They have gone out of their way to promote stadiums for their teams, not playing second fiddle to other sports. But when you see gridiron lines when watching a match on an SSS, then there is reason for fans to be disappointed.
     
  21. SideshowBob

    SideshowBob Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Northern VA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    People can object to whatever they want, but it's still the fans fault for their expectations, not the league.

    Nevertheless, my beef is that this was a very reasonable thread about the problems with not owning/controlling your own venue for MLS teams until the following occurred (ont the first page, no less)....

    Sounderfan posted: "The photos above are the reason the term Soccer Specific Stadium is a complete misnomer and a joke. Every SSS in the league gets used for other purposes and the MLS teams really have little or no say about it."

    Which both clouded the issue and was wrong.
     
  22. CommonSense

    CommonSense Member

    Jul 12, 2006
    Portland
    QWest, without a doubt, is a great stadium for soccer.

    If it's filled to capacity.

    When it's filled with 15K rabid fans, rather pathetic.

    My main concern is what has materialized in every NFL stadium that houses a MLS franchise.

    Fans. No matter if it's 12k or 25k, it still looks bad on TV. It still looks gaping in person. The atmosphere is significantly diminished when compared with the same numbers in a 25K SSS (whatever).

    If QWest's upper level will be curtained off, EVERY GAME, and Seattle packs the lower bowl with at least 20K+ avg, things could work out. The owernship group SEEMS dedicated to soccer.

    That said, they will soon learn that 20K in a stadium constructed with 70k in mind, as in the economic of running the day to day operations of a stadium that large are not conducive, in any way, to running a soccer franchise. You just can't make a profit (look at Gillette, there's a reason even Kraft & Co. has admitted they need a SSS). How much money do you think PA will lose for the love of soccer? Do you really think they'll be dedicated in avoiding football lines, adding a grass pitch, etc, when they realize the cost of running the Sounders in QWest, especially the soccer-specific changes needed, is simply not worth it.

    Again, I think we'll be stuck as 2nd class citizens due to economics. I don't care who the owners are, no one likes losing money. Unless Seattle support the Sounders better than ANY OTHER TEAM IN MLS IS SUPPORTED it's rather unlikely they'll turn a profit in QWest. Unless there's some different about averaging 20K in QWest when compared to Gillette.

    You guys go all day about Paul Allen. He's the reason! He's one of the richest guys in America so surely, he'll support us vs. the Seahawks, RIGHT!??!?!

    Ummm, snowballs chance in hell there. Seahawks vs. Sounders, money talks.

    Again, the economic model when 70K stadiums are built is not condusive to a football club. Kraft is rich. He owns the revenue streams, stadium and team. Every week, we have football lines. Despite some of the best supporters in MLS, they're constantly neglected. Most reports have Kraft making little to no profit on the Revs, and has a stated desire to move the team to a SSS.

    Why, you ask? Because you can't run a soccer team that draws 20K avg (in a great year) in a stadium meant for 60k+. That, and it's not condusive to soccer

    and

    THERE'S NO ATMOSPHERE WHEN MORE THAN HALF THE STADIUM IS EMPTY.
     
  23. usbfc

    usbfc New Member

    Sep 8, 2000
    New York City
    You're totally right. Ya know what? Forget it.

    No more SSS. Let's all just look for big baseball, NFL, and hockey arenas to play in. There's no point to having a SSS anyway. Meanwhile, I'm going to go find some other sport to watch because soccer will obviously never get anywhere since SSS are a joke.
     
  24. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    But what he states is true. There are situations where the MLS teams have little or no control, like Dallas. The school district in Frisco was involved in the financing of the stadium and has use of the stadium for high school football games. There is talk about the stadium in Toronto possibly being used for the Canadian Football League. Not all of these SSS are exclusively under the control of the MLS team that uses it. Is Home Depot under the control of the LA Galaxy or AEG? Not exactly one and the same.
     
  25. usbfc

    usbfc New Member

    Sep 8, 2000
    New York City
    Exactly, and since most of you are just content bending over for this type of stuff, I'm ashamed. I want no part of it. No more SSS. Just play in NFL stadiums since soccer provides an equally good atmosphere in them and soccer is just going to play second and third fiddle to other events where you go.

    Forget soccer being done right. Most of you people obviously don't care. If these are the kinds of fans MLS is going to have... good luck to MLS being anything respectable.

    I'm going to start petitioning for more Qwest stadiums in MLS.
     

Share This Page