Looking purely from a USL-1 standpoint, I think the following about soccer in our region: Best fans: 1. Portland 2. Vancouver 3. Seattle In terms of MLS expansion, Seattle is the most intriguing and most challenging market. Great rewards if it works, but will it work? The "Sounders" are a distant 3rd in regional attendance. Best Venue for MLS: 1. Seattle 2. Portland* need to remodel PGE 3. Vancouver* don't really have one I have been to all three numerous times. The only venue that looks "Big League" is Qwest Field. Both Swangard (Vancouver) and PGE (Portland) do have their plusses. Swangard has a grass pitch, and PGE has great transportation and a chance to be redesigned as a nice SSS. On a purely USL level I think Swangard in Vancouver works the best. Best owners: 1. Seattle 2. Vancouver 3. No ownership group finalized yet Seattle have been very fortunate to have local rich people who love soccer. These same people are the main reason Seattle is even on the MLS "possibility" list.
Just read this little article on yahoo sports regarding Chivas USA making it's first trade. It makes it sound like MLS is Mexico's minor league farm system. That certainly doesn't bode well for those Vancouverites who flock to everything thats considered "big League" Anyway here's the first paragraph and link to the article: " LOS ANGELES (AP) -- In the first trade for the team, Club Deportivo Chivas USA dealt defender Jeff Stewart to fellow Major League Soccer expansion team Real Salt Lake Wednesday in exchange for a youth international slot, allowing CD Chivas to add a 10th player from its Mexican PARENT club." (I capitalized the word in question). http://sports.yahoo.com/mls/news?slug=ap-mls-chivas-stewart&prov=ap&type=lgns
No. If the Vancouver Whitecaps were to join MLS they'd be one of the top drawing teams in the league just as they were in the NASL days (given a decent stadium to play in). Vancouver has always been the city that best supports it's local soccer in Canada. We had 150,000 in the streets at the soccerbowl parade in 1979, soccer interest is here (if we had a decent stadium the team would be drawing Rochester like numbers for USL division 1). What I'm saying is MLS isn't big enough that they will flock to Seattle to go support Seattles MLS team as they do their MLB and NFL teams. Thats a big difference.
Sorry to post three replies at once. I have to question some of your rankings here. I think you are ranking fans on the size of their supporters groups, I'm not sure if thats fair. You have to counter in longevity and knowledgeablilty into that factor. Longevity goes to the Vancouver fans who have been supporting the same franchise (albeit with a nickname change) since their first season in 1987. As for knowledgeability, I've read numerous articles from the NASL, CSL, APSL and A-League days in which visiting coaches etc, always say that Vancouver has some of the most knowledgeable if not the most knowledgeable fans in the league. The venue rankings are a bit difficult to judge as well. If we are talking MLS size then we would have to be comparing Qwest Field, Pge Park and BC Place. None of these stadiums has real grass. Qwest has FieldTurf, PGE Park has NextTurf (in really bad shape) and BC Place has astroturf. Of course this leaves BC Place in Vancouver as a last place venue. However if the CFL keeps picking up in popularity, who knows they may install Field Turf in BC Place. If this happens I'd say it would immediately jump to number one spot. Why? First off the top level of the stadium can be locked off and curtained off creating a 29,000 seat lower bowl intimate venue. Secondly the stadium was originally built and designed with soccer as it's main tenant, as the NASL Whitecaps were the top drawing sports team in Vancouver when it was built. It's designed to hold a full sized soccer field with the seats right on top of the action. As for best owners I'd also question Seattle as having the best owners. How much promotion of the team have they done the last few years? None, as they have focused all of their attention on getting MLS and not really caring much about the A-League team and it's fans.
There is NO WAY that a field-turfed BC place comes even close to Qwest Field. Come visit it some time! By 'best' fans, I meant only the attendance numbers, because it is true that everything else is subjective. Hell, even those are subjective. Portland have been known to 'alter' theirs in the past. But they probably do average about 8-900 more fans per match than the Caps in a much smaller market. BC Place: http://www.bcplacestadium.com/ Qwest Field: http://www.QwestField.com Even without this added grass, in the regular field turf, there's no comparison. I guess BC place would do for MLS in the short run, but not for long. As for beauty...ain't even a close call. Over 20 years ago...In 1983...with a roof... Qwest Field makes the same claim, and is a modern outdoor stadium with real grass as a possible option. Having been to both, I am shocked you would even put the two in the same "ballpark." Long-time Whitcaps fans hated that place. Yes, it was a bit better than "Empire" as far as weather and seating...but that's it.
Oh come on, perhaps I should find a photo of that 1983 NASL game at Vancouver between Seattle and Vancouver that filled the house with over 60,000 in the soccer configuration and post it. Posting an old photo showing the stadium in it's football configuration before they added curtains to the upper deck is rather a cheap move. I'm not talking about the stadium being "modern" I'm talking about seating configuration for soccer, and yes while the stadium was built completed in 1983, I haven't noticed FIFA changing the official size of a soccer field. Unlike Qwest built first and foremost for NFL, BC Place was built first and foremost for soccer. Also unlike the gaudy overpainted football lines the Seahawks have at Qwest, the BC Lions don't go overboard like that, with easier to remove football lines. Also I'm not saying that BC Place would be a permanent home for a team, just a secondary one until our new proposed soccer only stadium finally gets built.
Okay biased photograph comeback!! The Qwest field experience as phtographed by Allison Andrews last September: http://www.soccercityusa.com/timbers/sea090504-16.jpg BC Place soccer experience (imagine field turf not astroturf). http://newheads.tripod.com/swangardsouth/id12.html
We've been having a good laugh over turkey about even putting the two stadiums in the same conversation. Yourposted pictures prove the point even more. Look how close the Timbers fans are to the pitch! It's like the difference between the Kingdome and Safeco field for baseball. Qwest Field has such better sight-lines than BC place, and even a small crowd or gridball lines do nothing to further your case. BC place is an eyesore in an otherwise beautiful city, just as the Kingdome was---except that the Kingdome had steeper stands and thus better overall sight-lines. Thanks for the laugh, though.
And they made a subpar soccer stadium. 21 years of advances in stadiums can mean a lot. You are the ONLY Canadian I have ever talked with who will defend that white elephant. Face it, Vancouver needs a completely new venue for CFL and/or MLS.
I'm not defending anything. This is all about what would be a better stadium for MLS at the present moment. A few years down the road Vancouver is going to have it's own 15-20K soccer specific stadium, so childishly ridiculing BC place will mean nothing. I don't care about stadium beauty, thats a Seattle thing in which fans prefer to sit in stadium accompanied by 65,000 empty seats to watch the present day sounders instead of more intimate venues available. Yes the Timbers fans were much closer to the pitch because in the corners of Qwest field the seats are closer to the field but as in every NFL stadium (as your pictures above clearly show) near midfield the seats go just as far back as they do in BC place. Also it's a good thing Portland fans were in the stadium, else it would have been empty! Your stadium might be nice and new with all the bells and whistles, however we all know who gets the biggest priority in the stadium-the NFL. I'd rather watch a soccer game on BC Place astroturf than one on a gaudily painted NFL gridiron. One last thing as to the white elephant comment. Ask any of the fans who attended the sold out CFL western final two weeks ago at the stadium how the sight lines were or how they feel about the stadium. It's funny how perceptions change based on how many people are actually in the stadium. Another quick addition after looking at the photos of the different stadiums. Seems to me that the seats at Qwest (I'm talking lower level) sure travel back quite aways as you go up. Seats at BC Place are steeper leaving fans closer to the field.
Actually, just the opposite is true. The slower incline is at BC Place. I'm quite sure that both stadiums work fairly well as gridball stadia. However BC place has to accomodate the larger CFL field. Qwest field was built to house a 110 x 70 pitch. It has actually been measured by Seattle's Ron Stickney at 110 x 72. Ideally most soccer venues in North America should be 18-25K and specific to the sport. If Vancouver has an owner who can build this type of stadium and wants into MLS, then it could well happen. Right now Seattle has a pretty satisfactory alternative to an SSS. I am a big complainer about gridball lines too, hate'em. But I would not want that to stop a city from getting a MLS side. I LOVE the city of Vancouver, and have posted elsewhere that I would travel there if MLS came north before Seattle. However, BC Place, which was built more for a bid for Expo '86 than it was for soccer (according to several reliable sources) is NOT the best big soccer house in the region. Hey, I gave props for the atmosphere at Swangard, so I'm not a 'Couver basher.
Krammerhead From what I've seen in your pictures I like the BC place stadium at lot, it looks pretty awesome. My only question would be, would the MLS team be a primary tenant with the CFL? Or would they be second-fiddle? Also, what would we be looking at in terms of prices for a lease?
Well I'm not sure what it would cost to lease, but the stadium is mainly used nowadays for car shows and other such nonsense (aside from the 10 guaranteed CFL dates a year) so I'm sure they would not be second fiddle. However I'm really not sure anyone here is pushing for MLS as the moment.
Hey now, car shows are not nonsense I know my opinion is bias, but I'm going with Qwest. I hate hate the gridball lines, but the sight lines are great. If Seattle landed an MLS team, opened up the south sections behind the goal for supporters, and found a way to cover the upper bowel, it would almost be ideal.