Perhaps an answer to the distant permanent grandstand at PGE is to move the pitch over towards it and then compensate with seats on the other side. Right now the permanent stands 'curve' as they make way for the home plate area (see lower left of photo). Another thing that would have to be addressed. The Timbers use all of the distance between the pitch and stands for a beer garden right now. (lower right of stands in photo).
The singular version of this ("Actually, it's more of a guideline than a rule....") was from Ghostbusters, when the Bill Murray said that he had a rule against sleeping with possessed people.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/oregon/portland_pge.shtml I can't seem to paste this picture in. Maybe someone else can. It looks to me that if you look at my overhead picture, it would be pretty simple. you get rid of the bull pen or whatever that is down the right field line and the corresponding box seats where it cuts over to home plate. Then move the field towards the permanent stand. It actually looks pretty doable.
2008: San Jose (2- 7 team conferences; 3 games in conference and 2 games out of conference [32 total games]; 6 team playoffs with only 4 spots guaranteed to the top 2 finishers in each conference) 2009: St. Louis & Seattle (2- 8 team conferences; 2 games against everyone plus 2 games against 2 rivals [32 games]; same playoff format as above) 2011: Philly & Portland (2- 9 team conferences; 2 games against everyone [34 games]; same playoff format as above) 2013: Atlanta & Vancouver (2- 10 team conferences; 2 games against conference, 1 game against other conference, plus 2 games against 2 rivals [30 games]; same playoffs) 2016: Montrael & team from Southeast (2- 11 team conferences; 2 games against conference, 1 game against other conference [31 games]; same playoffs) {End expansion for at least a decade...maybe add 2 more after the decade, but no more after that for a very long time}
It's all semantics, but you could definitely argue that Qwest was built as a soccer stadium first (believe it or not). The field and stands were designed to hold a proper soccer field. A football specific stadium is not. So it is fair to say that Qwest was built for soccer and then accomodates football.
Wait just a cotton-picking minute. That would suggest we shouldn't call him an idiot every time MLS does something we don't like, and that's just crazy talk.
The best photo of how it could look. I still say the field is too far away from the main stand in this set-up (right stand) and even at the near endline area too.. There is a warning track and people walking in between the touchline and the stands. Solving that is a big issue as these are prime money-making seats.
How about expanding the field to maximum FIFA sanctioned width? If there is still room after that, maybe they could add tables and chairs in the space, similar to what Toronto does.
Once baseball is gone, it looks like you can easily move the field to the right in that picture and probably back a little bit. Then you build the stand on the outfield side up nice and close. Then you have two great sides and the end line seats will be a little closer (although those are traditionally cheap anyway). That can be done without a lot of cash.
I would love to see the seats closer but I also dont think it is an end all be all you seem to imply. Soccer (futbol) stadiums the world over are set back a bit for various reasons. The two main advantages of the current set up are: 1) 90% of the seats are under the roof - making a night like tonight (USWNT vs Mexico - it's about 50 degrees and raining right now)alot more attractive. We do live in the PNW 2) The sightlines. Even from behind the goal in the front row you can actually look down a bit on the action and that gives you far better view of the match than at field level IMHO. I love how close you are to the action at Qwest but when I have been down in the corner in the front row seeing what is happening on the far side is damn near impossible as you are looking through the players. If i were Paulson and were to spend 20 million it would not be on those seats but on a) field b) grandstand in the current opening and c) widening the concourse, more entrances, more bathrooms. It its current configuration over 12K and the stadium gets awfully uncomfortable to move around in. Beer lines are absurd, bathrooms as well. I would also just give up and give us North End boys and girls terracing
The biggest problem with PGE (besides the pitch which is AWFUL but will be dealt with soon) is the concourse. When we had the 15,833 match back in August (August right?) it was misery on the concourse. Setting the place up exactly like the WWC with a new preferably grass pitch and some changes to the concourse would be perfect. One thought though is that with the East Gate opening I'd assume if the East stand went back up, we might take out some of the crowdedness of the concourses. Another thought about the sightlines. The seats are pretty high up, they could add seats I'm thinking fairly easily once the dugouts were removed in order to bring the seats closer to the pitch. I can imagine a lot of, if not all of this could be done for 20 mil or thereabouts. The location for the baseball stadium is the other obstacle, but there are some locations, but we all know how Portland feels about it's land.
This is great for the MLS IMO. They could expand, and keep expanding. But getting teams that have an already established fan base [Portland and Seattle] only helps the MLS. Imagine the Timbers Army v. Red Patch boys or Barra Brava. This opens and created a large soccer fan base throughout the country. And to me it would make sense to have a single table, but if they can get to 24 teams then get promotion relegation. This only makes the league better...
1- I'm going to assume that Don Garber is going to push that group in Portland to seriously consider a new home, or at least hope that either the minor league baseball team or college football team move to their own facilities. I simply cannot see a situation where all three of those teams share one stadium. Imagine the congestion in early Fall. 2- Nike and adidas being in the Portland area really has no advantages. MLS is headquartered in NY, and look at the franchise there. No dice. 3- I see no harm in Garber doing some "exploratory" sight-seeing in Portland at this stage. He's really there to just get to know the potential ownership group, and take a look at the facility. It's not like he's going in front on the Portland city council giving a speech about how Portland needs to be in MLS next season. 4- This will ultimately fall on deaf ears, but there really is no business to discuss in terms of expansion until MLS Cup rolls around. By then, we will *probably* know something important, specifically related to St. Louis, Seattle and/or Philadelphia. Even so, it is a real possibility that no new expansion news concerning 2009 is made until the All Star Game next summer. 5- FIFA does not have a rule limiting the number of teams in a league to 20. It is simply a suggestion that has repeatedly failed when brought up in places like England (the Premiership has 22(?) teams, but the Championship has close to 30). I agree with others that, unlike the other pro leagues in the US, MLS should halt expansion at 18-20. No more than that. MLS big whigs have stated in the past that they want to build the number of teams to a certain number (like 18), and then just let the league grow from there without further expansion. Build a franchise dear to the city, build rivalries, increase attendance, etc. I really see no way cities like Minneapolis, Atlanta, Cincinatti and the like could ever support an MLS franchise in the near future. I suppose if pro/rel ever became real in the States, then yes, those cities could one day play in MLS.
More importantly, has he not heard of Wikipedia? I don't expect people to know how many teams are in the Championship, but there are very easy ways to find out.
It's possible to be a very good soccer fan without knowing or caring how many teams are in England's minor league(s).
This thread is actually very good in regards to showing the pros and cons of PGE. Central location-check. Mass transit-very good. Proper size for the sport-yes. But it is obvious work needs to be done. I used to live in DC and the camera side stands of RFK were very low and totally obstructed for the NFL games by the players bench, OK but far back for MLS, much like this place seems to be. The multi-use (baseball) config lent itself to some weird seat angles for soccer. As crappy as Giants Stadium is, much like Qwest, that raised height along the sidelines does create better sideline views. I noticed that the new Stadiums in Germany for the last World Cup took that into consideration. On the other hand, the British style low seats look great on TV and put the action real close to the fans. Isn't Toyota Park in this vein? The worst has to be a constant flow of fans strolling by all game long blocking your view, especially when the seats are low. As for the expansion itself, hopefully Garber will say in Novemeber that Seattle and St. Louis are in for 2009 and that Philadelphi has been given "conditional" entrance for 2010, with the stadium plan authorization being the final step. Then he can mention other candidates like he always does, with Portland maybe being one "key city" that is high on the list.
Yesterday's USWNT game: http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_3211269.html "It was raining on and off in Portland for most of the day, and while the precipitation held off during the match, the rock hard artificial surface was slick and fast, making for very difficult playing conditions. Both teams struggled with passes that skipped out of bounds and extra high bounces" Attendance: 10k Not sure if any this helps, harms, or does anything positive or negative for their bid...
Here's today's follow-up after the visit: http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/or...sports/1192679738147820.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 A couple of snippets: The league probably will name Seattle and an East Coast city as sites for the newest franchises, to begin play in 2009, Garber said. Portland is vying for one of two more expansion teams that would begin play in 2010 or 2011, he said. The competition includes Atlanta, Montreal, San Diego, St. Louis and Vancouver, B.C. and "With the right level of investment from the owner," Adams said, "with the right kind of fan-base support, with the right level of corporate sponsorship, and revenues derived from the soccer team and the facility itself, it is possible to put together a deal that could be successful here." Much more work lies ahead. "We're probably halfway there," Garber said. "It could come back the feasibility study says it's going to cost too much and there's no appetite on either the city's part or Merritt's part or both." This must be said: Will the corporate and business community in Portland get off their asses and DO SOMETHING for MLS in that town, PLEASE? SOON? It's the final piece for them. Public money is not going to happen. Private sources to help Paulson *must* come forward if MLS is to come to the Rose City.
I would definitely disagree with the condition of the turf. It rained steady pretty much up until 5pm. The surface was therefore pretty soft as the water soaked into it, but the footing was excellent as the turf is best in the rain, and while it was somewhat fast still (as is any artificial surface when it's seven years old), it was definitely not slick, and the bounces were not high. Just sounds like basic turf complaints, but as to the conditions last night (and yes, I was down on the turf), I hardly saw a single slippage and I was paying particular attention to how the turf dealt with being water-logged. Our NexTurf stinks when it's dry, but when it's soaked, no surface performs better. One thing I can say for sure is the bounces were not as high as a typical dry field turf surface.