Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) This is bullsh-t. San Jose was not sucking the league dry. Outside of LA, SJ was losing less money than any AEG owned team. If any team is sucking the league dry it is Red Bull. The Houston situation is no different than San Jose. They are still a tenant in a college football stadium. The team is still losing money. And I bet San Jose has an SSS before Houston does.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Houston has not been any change for the better as far as the league is concerned. It really just gave the folks in the Bay area a reason to ignore the league for a few years. Last year's cup truly belongs in San Jose along with the players, coach and equipment. San Jose got SCREWED..... and the worst part about it....... people acting as if the Houston franchise has done anything differently.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) 1. Locals in Houston approached AEG to purchase the Dynamo. They refused. 2. AEG is negotiating exclusively with the City of Houston to build a SSS next to Minute Maid Park. 3. Houston is still losing money, but less than they were in San Jose.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Sucking the league dry may have been a tad harsh, but they sure as sh*t weren't doing the league any favors. Here are the SJ and Houston attendance figures: Year Avg Total position road position 96 17232 275712 5/10 6/10 97 13597 217546 6/10 6/10 98 13653 218450 7/12 10/12 99 14959 239350 6/12 11/12 00 12460 199364 9/12 10/12 01 9635 125250 12/12 3/12 02 11150 156104 10/10 2/10 03 10466 156989 9/10 2/10 04 13001 195015 8/10 4/10 05 13037 208594 8/12 12/12 Houston 06 18935 302957 3/12 12/12 07 14832 207652 10/13 8/13 As far as how much money they were losing compared to other teams, that's impossible to tell. Of course DC and NY were always loosing more because they are playing in NFL stadiums with terrible leases. However, a quick look at the road attendance shows you that other teams hated having SJ in town with the exception of 4 seasons....when, coincedentally, they had their 4 worst home attendence figures and were at or near the bottom of the league. I know we've already been through this with the SJ faithful time and time again, so we don't need to keep going...especially given that this is a Seattle board and we were discussing the legitimacy of playing MLS games in Qwest and not you. But I think the attendance speaks for itself. While the fans they had were/are certainly some of the most spirited, there just wasn't enough of you. I hope that this isn't the case in 08 and beyond and I hope to be proven wrong in my beliefs that it will be. Furthermore, almost all teams in MLS lose money, its a matter of how much and are they in a favorabe position to make money in the future. Going back to the true task at hand, Seattle, I didn't know that about Qwest and the seats being so close. That's one of the fantastic qualities of Toyota Park here in Chicago. That will certainly make it better for soccer than Soldier Field was for the Fire. I think the biggest thing for me is that i'm an idealist. i would love all MLS teams to have their own homes, and have them with 18-25k people in them every night. I hope to one day see that dream, and see teams outgrowing the Pizza Hut parks and Toyota Parks of the world. I just think its in the leagues best interest, for long term viability as well as how the public views our sport, to have great stadiums packed to the rim all over the country. If 10 years from now, the Seattle franchise is selling 20k a night in Qwest, great. But I, personally, would still feel like the atmosphere could be better if it was in a sold out soccer stadium.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I'm sure we all appreciate your concern. Since it's Seattle fans that will be the ones buying the majority of the tickets I think Seattle fans should be the one's who decide if Qwest is an enjoyable experience or not. So far, even with crowds near 4000....... it's a great place to watch a soccer game. 4 to 5 times that number will only make it better. When you are sitting in the lower bowl...... you do not even notice the upper section. Even at Seahawk games where it is full. Until the entire league is bringing in 25,000 or more folks to each and every game..... it really doesn't matter. LA CLAIMS that they sell out every game yet I see quite a few empty seats every time I watch one of their games. The best atmosphere I have seen at HD was the Chivas vs LA game a week ago and it was not even close to being full. The people make the experience NOT the park.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I edited your post a little. Interesting how different it looks when we compare season to season. The average isn't that drastically different. For the life of me, I still can't understand why AEG pulled the team. Except that Houston was getting very good TV numbers for a city that didn't have an MLS team. "Sucking the league dry" was more than a tad harsh. It's fallacious. Which is why so many San Jose fans are still furious at AEG to this day, and even at MLS for letting AEG move the team. Things have changed so much in just the last 3 years that it's hard to remember that AEG *was* the league back then, owning half the teams. Anyway, just wanted to take another shot at setting the record straight. San Jose was moved because AEG decided to, as a pissy "I can't get my stadium so I'm leaving" move, and for no other real reason. They cited attendance, but if you actually look at real attendance numbers, San Jose's last two seasons, they had 13K+, their 3rd and 4th highest seasons, and solid improvements over their previous 3 seasons. No wonder SJ fans were livid. ...what was this thread about? Oh, yeah. Seattle fans taking pot-shots at less than full MLS SSSes. While using TWO photo examples of a chock-full Qwest. Sorry, I don't buy either of them. Makes me understand just a bit why folks are heaping crap on Seattle fans. Makes me a little sad, too. I like Seattle. I have relatives there. Have visited it a couple times. Even have a Sounders cap. I don't know who started throwing crap first, but this thread is full of so much crap 'evidence' that I probably shouldn't be surprised that the "SJ was moved because of crap attendance" canard came up. Seriously, Sounderfan, dig up pics of MLS games in Dallas, Columbus, Chicago, LA and Colorado with the stands full. Because those are out there as well. It doesn't bolster your argument to cherry-pick.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Run along troll. The point is that even SSS do not fill their quota of seats. Either way, it apparently doesn't matter now.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) This is sounderfan's passive-aggressive response to an even more passive-aggressive thread started by wscharrispa in MLS N&A declaring Qwest a disaster based on what he saw and heard through an internet feed (!). This is petty as all hell but so was that (you'd have thought that you all lost the Open Cup game or something?). This thread makes you understand what exactly again - that we're tired of being told by internet experts that the 'Hawk is going to be the second Giants Stadium?
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) OK. I'm going away now. Didn't know the history. Lesson learned. Never get involved in a pissing match that you didn't see get started. No, not a troll, just someone bugged at the tone of the conversation hereabouts. But clearly I shouldn't have butted in. So I'm not quite quietly butting out now.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I understand that two years is a small sample size and it remains to be seen how Houston's attendance will stack up over time. However, if you're going to use that argument, I don't want to see you posting things after the first two years of the new Quakes franchise like, "see, MLS should have never left San Jose, look at our attendance now." That would be very hypocritical given that we all know your attendance will be good at first as your fan base tries to prove exactly that point. The fact of the matter is this, the last SIX YEARS in San Jose, that franchise was in the bottom third in the league in attendance. Two of those years they were dead last and once they were a close second to last. Surely DC and NY were losing alot more money, we know this, but the league was hardly about to pack up and move franchices in two big East coast markets. Do I completely agree with the decision by AEG? No. I don't blindly follow what the league does and think they know everything about what's best for soccer in this country. Do I believe that a new owner and SSS is going to make all the difference for SJ? Maybe, maybe not. It remains to be seen. Hopefully these few rational thoughts will avoid continuing the pissing contest that we started. I'd like to continue this conversation in about 8-10 years when we have larger sample sizes to compare. I hope that I'm wrong, I really do, but right now I don't believe that I am. As for Seattle, I think this is something that you and I agree wholeheartedly on. Those pictures were crap. Pictures of a sold out Qwest during an international match and pictures of a US Open Cup game on a Wednesday night in July at Toyota Park are ridiculous to compare. Take some photos of TP over the past couple of months. The Fire have sold out 4 of their last 5 league games and the 5th was around 18,500. Two games left and those two (New England and Los Angeles) will both be sold out too. Not only that, but with Blanco, they have to be 2nd in the league in road attendance (or close to it) only to LA and their lack of Beckham.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Don't take this thread literally. Some of us Seattle folks love using a thing called sarcasm to prove a point by showing how the opposite point also has some flaws. That's all.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) While Qwest isn't ideal, it's not bad. I'd much rather see a SSS and don't want the Sounders playing in Qwest 10 years from now, but for 5 years or so while they figure out a SSS isn't bad. The biggest issue I have with Qwest is not it's size, but the turf. Regardless of what some people say, turf plays differently than grass and the game is worse off for it. If Qwest had grass I'd have little problem with it at all. Also, it should be interesting to see how the hide the football lines and logos. Will they paint over it poorly or will they do it right and essentially have them off for each game.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Excellent point. Several MLS players and coaches have been very vocal about their dislike for turf. NY, RSL, TFC I believe are the three unless I'm forgetting one. And NY will be grass in 08 with their new stadium. I know from a game perspective how different it is playing of turf as opposed to natural grass and I firmly believe that at the top level it should all be on grass. Either way, congrats to you all. It looks like Seattle is the next team in 2009 and not St. Louis or Philly. Again, I hope I'm wrong and you all pack the house. But, for personal reasons, I hope you get a SSS with real grass very soon. I'm also curious to see what happens to the Sounders and how MLS deals with rosters for this team.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) The Rev play on FieldTurf, as well. As for building a SSS, the ONLY way it happens is if the owners plunk down virtually the entire cost of the stadium themselves. You know, it's funny, all this "you have to have a SSS, Qwest is terrible", but not on damn word about the Rev having to build a SSS.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Bitchin and moanin plain and simple. F 'em. Seattle will be the class of the league within 5 years.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) "Not St. Louis or Philly?" Has the official announcement been made? Because I bet when it is, it includes either St. Louis or Philly as the other addition in '09.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) The league has put pressure on the Krafts, which is why they are pursuing building a SSS in Somerville, MA., which is northeast of Cambridge. A friend of mine spoke to the Mayor, who is up for re-election, and negociations are "going quite well"
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) WHAT MAKES YOU GUYS THINK SEATTLE WILL DRAW MORE FANS THEN COLOMBUS OR DALLAS ? what was the attendance for the Sounders, can they go from 4k in the A league to 15k in MLS?
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) everything is nice and dandy, show me the cash 30 mil to get into MLS, 7-10 k deposits for season ticket holders, and a 20k SSS....who's on top of that list ? there is a lot of talk but no substance
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) You know, you really should do some research before typing away. As far as QWest goes, I've stated previously I'm not high on big NFL stadiums with turf and football lines. However, Seattle might be a good experiment for MLS. In essence they will be very similar to Toronto, with the exception of BMO vs QWest. Consider that both had (/have) USL teams, low attendance for those teams, a brand new MLS team, turf field and a stadium in the best location. Of course that particular stadium is where the experiment and the success or the failure of the MLS club is crucial. Think of it this way. In Toronto you have a brand new stadium that sits 20,000. Demand and scarcity drove fans to buy season tickets instead of opting for single game events, because they didn't want to miss out. In Seattle, you won't have the same drive because the fans will know that there is not a chance QWest will sellout (outside of Posh), and will therefore opt to buy tickets at the gate. If the team and the weather should suck (and they both will, at least the team in the first year), will those fans show up?!? Thats really what is going to make this club as much of a success as Toronto, or as much of a failure as most BS posters predict. Regardless, at least they'll finally have a team in the Northwest. I'm sure ESPN will love that.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) Don't know about the fans, but I expect Seattle MLS to be competitive right away.
Re: The TRUTH about Qwest (photos) I don't know what they said because they entered the league before the invention of the internet.