Please provide a link to any statement that anyone in an official capacity at MLS has made that would lead anyone reasonable, let alone you, to believe that SSS's would have only soccer in them. Just one. And, when you give up trying, please point me in the direction of any reason whatsoever to think that "the marketing gurus of MLS" are to blame for your not knowing the difference between what your opinion of "what an SSS is suppose [sic] to be," and what it actually is. Again, just one.
Only if you make lots of unwarranted assumptions based purely on rumors. Know one yet knows if they'll be playing on artificial turf or grass or how many concessions they'll have to make to the NFL. It could turn out like you say, with Qwest just being way, way too big for an MLS team. Or it could turn out exactly the same way it has for every other MLS team that has tried to coexist with football or baseball, even when the teams share the same owner.
The bottom line is that building SSS has absolutely, positively turned this league around. Nitpicking over what SSS means doesn't change the fact that MLS would be history if it wasn't for the opening of HDC, PHP, TP, and so on.
It sounds like the original poster is looking for a Soccer Only Stadium. SSS always have other events, football lines, torn up grass. Soccer Only stadiums don't exist.
Dear God.. Seattle fans and Earthquake fans should only talk to each other. Both groups of fans seem to speak their own shared language of insecurity induced insanity that the rest of Bigsoccer just can't understand.
No, the orginal poster is looking for a soccer stadium where the pimary tenent soccer team controls scheduling enough to dictate when the stadium hosts other events. The problem isn't the stadium hosting the Pros vs. Joes thingee; the problem is that DCU couldn't say "no" or couldn't say "do it next week instead" because it's not their own venue.
A Saturday night game in October at Qwest will have the huge bright green and blue Seahawk at midfield and football lines everywhere. Take it to the bank.
Wow, what makes you think you know more than the ownership group. What you saying is pure speculation. Do you honestly think they have not thought through all the considerations you mention? How do you know a game is going to lood bad on TV. MLS Seattle has not even played a game yet at Qwest. Nor have you watched a game. Why don't you just wait until we play and a game is televised to make your judgement. I am looking forward to attending games at Qwest, like I have been, in nice comfortable seats instead of metal highschool seats mind you. When a sounder game comes on TV and you don't like what you see, you can flip to bleedin' Fox Soccer Channel Oh one other thing... If you don't like Qwest you can just toss off then you whiney wanker! Cheers Mate!
The team has made agreements to have the lines removed in the fall for games so sod off! Cheers Mate!
Flattery will get you everywhere. You are right, It must be the rain and the fact that we drink too much coffee. Actually, I could give a toss what you or everyone else thinks. I think these boards are fun and every so often informative. No one is going to change anyone's mind re. Qwest. The Qwest haters have their minds made up. So the banter just keeps going round and round. It is entertaining actually. Cheers Mate!
Don't you think that all of the principals involved, Garber, Hanauer, etc. understand this by now? I hardly think that Hanauer is the type to dump money into a business model that has proven unsuccessful, nor would Garber allow a new team to take this path again. Qwest sits unused most of the time. There has to be something in the Seattle MLS plan that allows the team use of the stadium for dates outside of their regular use. My guess is that Qwest is going to be the location for games like the Real Madrid/DC United lat year, and ManU and Celtic a few years earlier.
Look, I know what a stadium is suppose to be. A place to gather people to watch an event. If some of you are hung up on a stadium having to be specific to soccer, then I apologize if you cannot enjoy the game in some other venue. None of you can explain a logical reason for the need of the term specific. Stop this BS about meeting some guidelines. Those guidelines exist if an MLS team is involved in building a place regardless if they call it a soccer specific stadium, a soccer stadium, a stadium or our place. And this argument that there is better ambiance in a smaller stadium vs. a larger one is nonplus. If you have 12,000 people, it is just that. Truth is that MLS teams are shortsighted when they build venues for less than 30K. It limits their ability to host big games. And if anyone thinks that ambiance is missing at 47K/52K RFK Stadium, then you have definitely missed something about one of the greatest soccer venues in our country (and in one of the quotes below, Don Garber agrees). A few articles of MLS/Don Garber making use (marketing perhaps) of the term SSS ... http://soccertimes.com/wagman/2000/oct26.htm http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000619525.cfm?x=b11,0,w http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCN/is_2_26/ai_101939916 http://web.mlsnet.com/news/team_new...ent_id=49542&vkey=news_sje&fext=.jsp&team=sje http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/exclusives/index.html?article_id=193 (interesting perspective about a soccer specific stadium) http://www.squarefootball.net/article/article.asp?aid=3697 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/2000/mls_preview/news/2000/03/15/stateofmls/ http://www.soccernewengland.com/articles/view_article.php?id=1224 http://usafootie.blogspot.com/2006/04/guess-whos-back.html http://seattlest.com/2006/11/16/why_major_league_soccer_is_never_coming_to_seattle.php
I prefer to look at it as a case of the local team ceding control of the stadium on days on which they usually don't use it anyway, in exchange for $15 million upfront and getting all the revenues on an ongoing basis. In effect, Frisco ISD bought use of the stadium on Thursday and Friday nights for the next 20 years from FCD/HSG. Oh, and BTW, the fact that they have use of the stadium on Thursday and Friday night hasn't kept FCD from having Thursday night games.
No, the bottom line is having a stadium has turned things around. Next to the IKEA in Frisco is a minor-league baseball stadium. Now if the Hunt Group built a multi-purpose stadium that could house the minor league baseball stadium too, would it not make more money? Again, no one is arguing whether MLS teams should have their own stadiums or make money. Why bring it up in the debate when it has never been an issue?
OK. No one is arguing against that. I think we all understand the economics and that is fine. Part of the financial arrangements. So FC Dallas does not have complete control of its SSS. So the original statement made by SounderMan has truth to it. Agree?
HA 5th page. I only post that because I can't believe this wasn't settled on the first page. Oh, well it was, then a clusterfcuk occured.
If you wish to be excessively pedantic, let me pull up his statement: It is still false, since FCD does not have "little or no say" about the other events held in their stadium.
Nope. He was wrong. He said: "Every SSS in the league gets used for other purposes and the MLS teams really have little or no say about it" He's wrong on multiple counts: 1. Some MLS teams have considerable (if not full) control over their venues. They can decide who else can use it and when this occurs. So his use of "every" followed by "the MLS teams" is incorrect 2. Your point about Dallas doesn't really follow at all or support his claim IIRC, FCD does control the scheduling and revenue of PHP. It's hardly "little or no say". Yes, the local school district gets contracted use of the stadium during football season for its team. That's part of the deal that FCD made in exchange for a boatload of money to build the stadium. That's not really different from, say, the Galaxy renting out the HDC to the LA Riptide for use. Sure, it's not a direct rental payment, but it's basically money in exchange for giving up some of the time at the stadium. It doesn't change the fact that when, say, InterLiga games occur at PHP, FCD gets money for it. 3. The entire point of this thread -- before folks like you got off the topic by complaining about the nomenclature -- is discussing how key SSS are int erms of maintaining scheduling priority for MLS teams at their home venues. Again, AFAIK, that's in place at every SSS -- while there may be certain days that the stadium is in use for other events, the MLS teams have the first shot at days and can typically veto other events from using the place if they don't want it. DCU cannot in any way do that with RFK. Obviously, it's going to be determined by the specific ownership and contract terms for each venue but by and large the MLS teams have very strong scheduling control over these venues, not "little to none".
Jeeezus...... if it makes you all feel better, I was wrong on the second part of that statement. I still think referring to these stadiums as "specific" is misleading. They are multi purpose stadiums that tend to be smaller than a venue suitable for Larger crowds. (above 30,000) Ok... so I WAS WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG. I'll be on the bridge railing if anyone needs me.
That's fine. They are misleading if you don't understand what the name actually indicates. Fine. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that you took the thread completely off topic with your complaint. which happened to be an incorrect statement anyway. Edit: And I'll point out that it's a pretty significant detail. Some Sounders fans seem to think that the big issue with Qwest is about the football lines and turf field and stuff (and obviously a lot of people compplaining about Qwest focus on that). IMHO, those topics, plus the size, are issues, but potentially things that can be dealt with. No, the problem with Qwest not being a "SSS" is about control. The problem is that the Sounds aren't the primary tenant. And that they won't have scheduling priority. And that they won't get revenue from other events held there. Because those are truly the things that make the SSS model work so well for MLS. Yes, appropriate sized venues and proper fields certainly encourage better attendance, as does the "feel" of being a team that plays in its own home and is not a secondary tenent. But more improtantly is that SSS's make money for MLS teams.
First of all, that point of the thread is obvious and there would be little discussion concerning that point. Now for your assumption that DC United cannot in any way have such control over RFK is false. It could negotiate to be the exclusive tenant of RFK with complete control of the stadium and its use. Now we all know that is economically not prudent but it is not entirely impossible.
Well, now you can put it back on track. I made a very simple observation and was jumped for it. Then another poster brought up Qwest. For christ sakes....let it go. I did on page 2.
And so we are to just use your words to correctly interpret the meaning of SSS? You think that only a few are mislead? Again, if Don Garber went around and stated that a new franchise would be considered only if the ownership had its own soccer stadium, would it change things? Is that extra S necessary? It is a term that Lamar Hunt coined and has been used by Garber and MLS as part of their marketing of the league. As for taking the thread completely off target, who cares. Made for interesting conversation. Otherwise, this thread would have only a handful of posts.