http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/12/01/three-strikes-pge-park-plan-delayed-for-a-third-time/ My take is that these new design proposals have to be scrapped if construction is going to happen according to schedule. It's just like what happened with the potential deal for the baseball stadium in Beaverton. The public vote was going to take too much time, so the Beaverton deal was scrapped altogether. There is also a supposed deadline of December/January to finalize the deal. Even if this proposal is voted on positively on January 6, that doesn't provide much more time to iron out any other financial details. (http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/10/01/portlands-major-league-soccer-deadline-extended-until-winter/) It makes me wonder out loud why the city and Paulsons continue to be at odds so often. The Paulsons are also having issues with other municipalities in the area regarding the new baseball stadium. If they can't get this deal done soon, MLS should move their entry to 2012. The stadium renovations are little by little being reduced in order to accommodate this increasingly tight schedule. That will have implications down the road. One extra year will give them the time to do this right.
I don't know about that. Why is it fair to push Portland back on the chance that it's stadium remodel will be delayed a bit when we have teams like San Jose and Kansas City both of which are playing in sub-11,000 capacity stadiums that aren't even designated solely for soccer. Bottomline is that Portland MLS will be the next best thing to happen to MLS considering the huge rivalry between Seattle and Portland. I doubt MLS is willing to back down over some minor stadium issues that can probably be solved before the beginning of the 2011 season even with these new delays.
From the article: A December 9th vote is much better than a January 6th vote, as was reported in the first article I posted. The Oregonian reporter is only saying that it is "likely" that there will be a December 9th vote while the Willamette Week reporter has a statement from the mayor's office. Maybe she misconstrued what this statement means? Statement from the mayor's office in the WWeek article:
San Jose and Kansas City are original teams, so they have received a lot of leeway. Recent expansion teams have set a bar for how further expansion teams should enter the league. Even Merritt Paulson and Don Garber agree that things like continuing to share with baseball would detract from the type of in-stadium experience they want to provide. Once the renovations are agreed upon, it will take additional political wrangling in the future to add anything new. So whatever they come up with in the next month or so is what we will have to live with for seasons to come.
Why are they fighting him so hard? Have they not seen what the Sounders have done for Seattle? Portland has one major sports team and they're killing their chances for another one. A Portland MLS franchise has so much damn potential its awful to see the elected officials fight it so hard. I can't imagine the frustration that MLS fans in Portland feel.
The article from The Oregonian has been updated, and references to a December 9th vote have been removed. So it looks January 6th is indeed the new date of the vote. Here is what the edited portion looks like now (compared to what I posted in post #5): http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/12/talks_continue_on_converting_p.html There are still financial disagreements between the city and the Paulsons. Mayor Adams does not want to put a new law on the books that would allow development of office buildings at PGE Park unless a deal looks likely to be struck. These delays are like a canary in a coal mine. From my understanding, the city has suffered some financial setbacks this year that have affected its capacity to fund the renovations (namely by selling bonds), and this has led to them trying to negotiate a better deal. As it stands, the Paulsons could effectively get all the renovations for free depending on the inflation rate over the next few years (which affects the future value of rent dollars) and despite contributing some private money. The potential future savings from the rent holiday could counter-act even this private contribution. So the city wants to ensure that they at least get to keep stadium naming rights money. They are also negotiating where the rent from any new development at PGE Park, such as the medical clinic, would go. The Paulsons want to keep that rent, while the city believes that some or all of that rent should go to them.
WRONG!! the next best thing to happen to MLS will be the philadelphia franchise, followed by the opening of the new RBNY stadium in 2010; after that, the next best thing will be the Triangle rivalry of vancouver, seattle and portland in 2011 followed by the successful # 19 franchise of montreal in 2012 MLS will keep on getting more and more successes and good news stories IMO, at least until the # 20 franchise is awarded-- and if it goes to beckham, then that wil be the next best news for MLS, especially from a world-attention point-of-view as long as MLS does the player bargaining in a constructive, positive manner, then there is lots of good news coming and if KC, SJ and houston get their stadiums going by 2012-2013, then... u get the picture!! (who the heck knows about DC and NE!!)
Portland needs to get its act together. This PNW thing will blow away anything else in the MLS. Not getting it done is stupid for MLS, Portland, and US soccer.
bright posts thread on bigsoccer about the portland stadium, bigsoccer posters who don't otherwise follow the situation freak out for a couple pages, all the portland people don't freak out because they know better. this is getting done. no worries.
oh hey BROSUF wanna turn this into a portland-seattle rivalry thread?!?!? i BET I KNOWWW MORE ABOUT SOCCOR THAN YOU N00b
Nobody is hijacking anything here rasta. You'd also know that I am FULLY behind Portland 2011-- intro to this league. check into it
Hey bright can you provide an update on Vancouver? Word is they are playing at a temporary stadium on a cricket ground. I suppose they should be moved back to 2012 too, right? I'm dying for your take on another teams stadium negotiations.
Rule #10,973 of political life: If you run a government and are in a negotiation with a private party involving your money, and you cut off negotiations too soon, you look like you caved. Therefore, you may as well have caved. The city has incentive to stall. They want to look good, they want to look like they won even more from Merritt Paulson. I refer back to the end of the task force crunched up against the vote and the eventual award. An end date has been picked for this process. Count on rubbing up right against it.
Technically, he squeezed the state of Washington, not the city of Seattle. A few other differences were that the project went to a vote by the citizens of the state, the project was more than just a stadium (also a convention/exhibition hall and a center-piece of SODO/Pioneer Square redevelopment), and the Kingdome was falling apart and needed to be replaced. The Qwest Field referendum was passed in 1997 when the economy was doing much better. 2009 has a different economic climate.
They aren't playing on a cricket ground but they will be playing a few games (if not the entire season depending on overruns on the new roof) at a temporary stadium. Location as yet unknown but more than likely at the old Empire Stadium site where the Whitecaps used to play before moving to BC Place. There are currently 8 bids for the temp stadium project. Here is the RFP for the temp stadium... [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]BC Pavilion Corporation Temporary Stadium Grandstand Seating Pavco, the crown corporation responsible for BC Place, is seeking proposals for the construction of temporary grandstands to facilitate the formation of a stadium suitable for the playing of Canadian football or soccer. Specific requirements are: - Capacity of 30,000 to 32,000 with at least 75% of the seats covered - Individual and seating preferred (to at least 85% of capacity) - Other facilities required include: - 24 private boxes - Media facilities (press box) - Broadcast boxes The location in the Greater Vancouver area is to be determined. Facilities which may be included in the proposal or which may be provided under other contracts include: - Washrooms - Concessions - Stadium lighting - Scoreboards and video boards - Sound The proposal must be priced by item i.e. seating, roof, lighting, etc. [/FONT]RFP closes Nov 20th 2009 Winner announced Dec 5th 2009 Work complete June 15th, 2010
Put grass in too, and maybe the Whitecaps should just play in that stadium. Sounds not too far off from some of the SSS other teams have. Re: Portland: I think it's a case of right place, wrong owner. If I were Garber I'd quietly look for another owner (a la Roth) who might want to start up in PDX. the last thing MLS needs is yet another team playing in a minor-league baseball stadium indefinitely.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about, the parties involved, or the situation at hand? I don't think you do.
While this is interesting, I really wanted Bright's opinion since he considers himself the formost expert on the stadium negotiations happinging in cities he doesn't live in.