I'd have zero problem if they used "soccer stadium" instead. It's just as informative to me as "soccer specific stadium". Either case, it sounds like a stadium that will be used primary for soccer. But that it wouldn't discount the possible of other events beign held there. Honestly, I don't see how the use of the word "specific" (or not using it) conveys any information about anything other than the primary tenent -- both seem just as likely or unlikely to host other events. Anyway, my point would remain that using the word "specific" means nothing beyond a stadium built to primarily house soccer. That's all. You (apprently) seem to think that it's used to deliberately mislead the public into thinking that it's a "soccer only" venue; I don't see that at all because the term doesn't mean that any more than saying "soccer stadium" would mean that. In fact, the only terms that would mean that would be calling it "soccer only stadium" or "soccer exclusive stadium" or the like. Really? And yet many Seattle fans still don't get that a major part of getting a SSS for a team (as opposed to a Qwest setup) is to have control over the stadium -- as the original poster discussed.
That's not it at all. Folks in Seattle KNOW that a Soccer stadium is NOT going to happen unless it is entirely funded by the ownership group. We also KNOW it will not be in Seattle but in a suburb that takes away from the experience we have come to consider part of the professional sports scene. DOWNTOWN! We KNOW the limitations that the market imposes and accept the fact that Qwest will be used for exactly what it was built for. SOCCER AND FOOTBALL.
The Village of Bridgeview built Toyota Park, not AEG or the Chicago Fire. Not a single dollar came from AEG, MLS or the Fire, anywhere else, including state money. So... you're wrong.
Yeah. OK. Whatever. Is it true that you're going to be running the Kool Aid stand for MLS games at Qwest?
So what is the situation at Home Depot? It is not owned or controlled by the LA Galaxy. Chivas USA definitely has no ownership. Technically, it belongs to the Home Depot Foundation and is under the control of AEG, who developed the complex. Now AEG owns the Galaxy but that is a whole different corporation. So it is any different than the situation in Seattle? http://www.homedepotcenter.com/aboutus_thehdc.php And good for the Home Depot Center. It calls its venue a soccer stadium. http://www.homedepotcenter.com/venues_soccerinfo.php
Actually now. For starters, First and Goal won't directly own the Sounders. Paul Allen who owns (or partly owns? I don't know the specifics) First and Goal will be a part owner of MLS Sounders. the other part owners of MLS Sounders do not have states in First and Goal (or the Seahawks for the matter). If I'm wrong on this, someone can freely correct me. Second, I remain highly skeptical that the Sounders will be treated as a primary or even an equal tenent to Qwest, but rather as the secondary tenent compared to the Seahawks. And that's important when it comes to scheduling and revenues and the team specific advertising in the stadium. This comes into play given that the owners of the Seahawks, First and Goal, and Sounders are not entirely the same -- some groups gain more benefits from promoting one side of things than another which could lead to conflicts (and, IMHO, MLS likely getting shafted in such situations). Aand about revenue: the big benefit that SSS's provide is that the MLS teams get to collect revenue from other events there. Unless the provisions for Qwest entail that the Sounders will be getting rent from the Seahawks or concessions and parking with concerts or full advertising revenues from the stadium billboards and naming then the model of Qwest simply does not mimic that at typical SSS's. And this is huge because it is those ancillary revenues that have (finally) allowed some MLS clubs to break into the black financially. To address the specific point of Seattle's ownership, I actually think that having Paul Allen involved is a bad thing. Yes, a bad thing. Because his outside interests (First and Goal and the Seahawks) suggest to me that his involvement with the Sounders is one of convenience, not enthusiasm. And that when given the chance, he'll likely screw over the Sounders in a second in order to generate money for First and Goal or the Seahawks. I would love to be proven wrong in this. Admittedly, my perception is probably colored by having some friends in Portland and seeing their overall opinion of Allen and how he treats the Blazers. The fact that Allen in ungodly weathly is nice; I'm skeptical that he's all that interested in spending that wealth to improve MLS.
It makes me sick to my stomach watching MLS teams whore out their stadiums to anyone else during the season to make a buck. It makes MLS look like they would give their ass fo a dollah!!!
Actually, I agree. AEG could divert funds from the HDC and do some creeative bookkeeping to cause the Galaxy to be money losers. They could. I don't think they will because AEG/Big Phill seems to want to have MLS grow and prosper. IOW, I trust that he'll keep that money invested in MLS. I don't OTOH trust Paul Allen to do the same. I think his involvement in MLS Sounders is a way to get an extra tenent for his football stadium and generate more revenue for First and Goal. I'm skeptical as to when push comes to shove, whether he'd really have the Sounders best interests in mind. I think he'll be like Kraft, only less involved (at least Kraft fully owns the Revs) Oh, as as to Chivas, I think it is critical for them to build their own SSS and get out of Carson. Beign a tenent there for them is a lousy idea on multiple levels IMHO.
So you trust the big entertainment guy, but not the guy who owns two franchises and is about to add a third, and has done everything in his power to make his previous two profitable? Excellent reasoning. I suppose that's the beauty of it, really. It doesn't matter if you trust him or not. MLS appears to, so I'd say that wins.
Nope--not at all. For a couple of years now, DC United has had to share RFK with the Nationals. It meant relocation of one supporter's group, loss of some lower level stands, other stands further away from the field. There were a few pluses (better food). But the single biggest issue was the field. Now all soccer fields get some use so I get that fields don't stay pristine. But a baseball field causes some unique issues. And RFK has some field issues anyway--two sink holes for instance that where there one morning out of nowhere (the consequence of building a city on a swamp). So now new turf gets put down with a new base. What any greenskeeper or turf specialist would tell you is that you want to give it a chance to settle and get established. So instead they not only book in a major event, but one that is going to put some hard use on the field (boxing ring?). The effect of this is also to evict DC United from the stadium and thus getting acclimated to the new turf.
Yep, that's it. I do trust the guy who was with MLS through the horrible times, including taking over a number of franchises (and losing money on them). Somehow, just maybe, I think he might actually want MLS to succeed. Especially given how much he has invested in the league (money and time). Meanwhile, with Allen, we see a guy who got into the Sounders bidding late and reportedly hasn't even put up any of his own money (supposively, his "share" of the franchise fee is granting the Sounders rent free use of Qwest). Meanwhile, since the ownership of the Sounders and the Seahawks and First and Goal are different, Allen would benefit more from any revenue going to First and Goal than he would from revenue going to the Sounders. So, is it unreasonable to question that he might use creative bookeeping to "hide" potential revenue from MLS and push it towards his other, more lucrative, interests? Obviously, if they grant the bid, MLS doesn't have the same skepticism. That's fine. I hope they do a good job insulating themselves from that possibility. I hope the Sounders are profitabler and successful. I'm just expressing reasons why I have some doubts about it and why the Qwest deal is less than optimal. Oh, and most Trail Blazers fans would take issues with the idea that he's run that franchise well. If by "doing everything in his power to make his previous two profitable", you mean lining his own pockets, they'd probably agree. But if you mean "making the team as good as it could be", I doubt they would.
Is there a requirement for revenues from the beloved SSS to be shared with the league? I could understand if the league has invested into a stadium but otherwise, I don't see any incentive for a club to share. If anything, the incentive is to create a holding company to own the venue and rent to the team. Conversely, if revenue is shared by the league, then should not the league help out with rent for some of the other clubs?
It's pretty funny that you are the one asking this after you posted all those links one page back. From the first link there (a soccertimes article): These may have changed a bit since that article was writtern -- it's from 2000 -- but the basic points are still true, I believe. Yes, team revenues ae shared. And, yes, team expenses are shared - -that's why the horrible leases for DCU and RBNY are bad for MLS as a whole.
I think, in the case of the Blazers, the problem is being too close to the team emotionally, as apparently basketball is his favorite sport. He actually wanted the Sonics, but couldn't get Ackerley to sell. He had a finger in each and every decision that was made. With the Seahawks, he really had no emotional investment in the team at all when he bought them, he mostly just bought them to keep them from leaving town. In the Seahawks case, he brought in good management and then stayed the hell away from the team. Since he's done that, it's brought them nothing but success (for the most part). Once he started doing that with the Blazers, they started their turnaround. And seriously, Bob Whitsitt shouldn't ever be hired by any sports team ever. Ugh.
I knew that article was old, so I was not sure if it was still the case. Remember that back then, there was little diversity among owners. But if that is still the case, then I would guess that Hunt Corp leases the stadium to FC Dallas, as is the case with Kraft and perhaps the others. Better to keep the profits through another entity than to share with everyone else. It would make little business sense for stadium revenue/expenses to be shared league wide.
Which is exactly why the 75% of Seattle MLS owned by Joe Roth and Adrian Hanauer, whose sole investment and love and attention are with Seattle MLS, is so important. It's also why this ownership group is 'dynamic,' it seems to be addressing both stadium issues (money to, for and from) and "MLS soccer first" issues as well. Joe Roth :50% Adrian Hanauer: 25% Paul Allen: 25% Roth and Hanauer provide the soccer love, cash, development, guidance and representation. Paul Allen is a partner in the stadium.
It's true that the parent company could create a holding company that would then lease the stadium to the team and on paper the team wouldn't seem to make much money (while the company holding the stadium would make out like a bandit). But the thing to remember here is that soccer is supposed to be a money-pit. This sudden interest in soccer and MLS specifically here in North American is a combination of MLS showing that you can make money on soccer (or more specifically, with a SSS which you can then rent to a WUSA-II team or hold a few concerts) and Beckham driving up the visibility and interest. Suddenly, MLS looks like an inexpensive way to get into pro sports and also a growth vehicle to guys who 3 years ago would have held up their noses at pro soccer. So ultimately, it's in the interest of each invester for his team to look very profitable. It may mean more contributions to the quarterly cash calls in the short-term but it increases the number of interested expansion investors (which is money into your pocket), increases the value of your franchise and thus the selling price should you sell it off at some point. And FWIW, I agree that the 2000 explanation of how the revenue works is supposed to be how it functions now. But I'll offer one caveat--my understanding is that the league made exceptions to RSL when they came into the league at the time.
PS: Those ownership % numbers from a SportsBusiness Journal article a week or so ago. Hanauer later told the Seattle Times they are 'roughly correct.'
Joe - For me, it is a bad business model if continued today. Each team sets ticket prices, marketing plans, staff, etc. And it would make sense to divert funds to a holding company, which may be done for tax purposes anyway. I would hope that the league does not continue such a socialist policy, especially considering that the situation varies from one team to another.