Sounders Presence I think you probably did miss it, you can order tickets through their web site, and I dare say it won't be a sell out so there will be tickets at the door.
Since the final match of 1994, it's never been a problem buying a ticket. Well, except for last Wednesday night at Interbay. That 1000 capacity seems to work for creating demand. My point was this: o Big splashy debut at the new stadium o Sounders play the first event in new stadium in one week's time. o Sounders ought to have a ticket stand on-premises, mercilessly humping the previous point. Rest assured the Seahawks were pulling out the stops to sell tickets.
I didn't make it down there, so can't speak for any Sounder presence or lack thereof, but if they weren't there or weren't as visible as they should have, then it's their bad, definitely.
Good grief. It is FIFA approved. It gets approved on a case by case basis so FIFA determines individually if the installation is worthy of approval. Go to the fieldturf site and read a little please.
Here's yet another little twist on the FieldTurf story. Just heard a radio interview with one of the head guys for the FieldTurf company. The interviewer mentioned that the soccer people and Paul Allen wanted grass, but that Holmgren wanted FieldTurf after playing on it at Husky Stadium. The interviewee acknowledged this, and added that two of Holmgren's daughters played collegiate soccer on FieldTurf in the Chicago area and had been telling him what a great surface it is/was. He also added that they designed FieldTurf originally for tees at golf courses, then got it in many indoor soccer facilities, followed by high school fields, and lastly colleges and the pros.
Who, Brian Davis? I knew he left, I didn't know he went to Seattle, and I didn't know he was the PBP guy for the Seahawks.
This briefly mentions today's A-League game, but more so talks about soccer in Seattle, exhibition games, MLS possibilities, etc. So, where's the soccer team?-Tacoma News Tribune
Check out the digicast. It is of great quality, and the stadium looks great. http://www.seattlesounders.net/webcast.asp# (caveat: I have a DSL connection) Oh man! The mike on the field is great!! Lots of F-bombs!
Yeah, that's why he left. There was a rather sizable story on him in the Sun-Times when he left, and mentioned that despite being the radio studio voice of the Bears for WGN and being the voice of the Fire, plus having been in the Chicago area with his family so long, the opportunity he was afforded couldn't be ignored. (Translation: Mucho cashola)
So this wonderful new Seahawks stadium, the one about which Fred Mendoza says "There is no finer soccer-viewing venue in the United States" (and Fred should know, being that he's vice chairman of the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, and therefore an expert on soccer stadiums), this new gazillion dollar soccer wonderland, has a "field is a full 70 yards wide..." Be still my beating heart. Why do I think that Seattle-area soccer fans who voted for this stadium were sold a bill of goods? Sorry about Doug Logan's idiotic spewings back when he was commish. But this place looks like an NFL stadium. Period. I'm sure it could host soccer games very nicely; so can CMGI, the new Soldier Field (starting in 2004), Crew Stadium, the Galaxy's new stadium (starting next spring). Ehat wil this stadium have to offer the USSF that other stadiums don't? Perhaps a more friendly fan-base, I suppose. And regarding MLS, once again, the only important thing is buried at the end of the article; Seattle has no investor.
I think the stadium would make a great MLS stadium. There were 25,500 people to see the Sounders, and it filled up the lower bowl and the north bleachers very nicely which together seat 35,000. The empty seats in the upper deck did not seem to be a distraction at all! I am not sure how the architects managed it, but you would have to be there to understand. The lower bowl seating was very intimate and close to the field. My viewing perspective was halfway up the first deck almost at midfield. I would much prefer the stadium to have grass, which would look heavenly in that stadium, but the FieldTurf played very nicely. My only real complaint was the extremely loud music that was sometimes played during the run of play, but that is nothing new for a Sounders game, except they were now blasting that crap through 200dB speakers. I'm sure the jock-rock CD jockey was having a wet dream that night. - Paul
I posted this somewhere else so I'll summarize. I was in row 2 about 15-20 feet from touch. Very nice. The stadium: a good football stadium in which to watch soccer. If it were in Barcelona or Munich it would be a good soccer stadium. I didn't feel lost in the immensity of the facility. The music was terrible. It cheapens the game. I don't want the NBA I want soccer. The live drums were great. The surface was good but my friend and I seem to remember having played on a similar surface that had more nap(sp?). In other words, the "grass" was longer which made for a better grab on the ball.
The atmosphere was better than I expected. As far as big venues, far better for soccer than the Kingdome or Husky Stadium. But that was with 25k in attendance. With a smaller crowd, as we'd expect for an A-League or MLS game, I'm not sure it would work week in and week out. My biggest concern continues to be that I don't think the leaders of the soccer community here have the same goals as the soccer fans. These leaders seem to think that by staging a handful of international friendlies and club exhibitions in the stadium each year, the soccer community will get "what they want." They seem to ignore the Sounders, MLS and other games that actually matter, like WCQs. Basically, things the soccer fans care about. If the friendlies and exhibitions are the icing, where's the cake? That extra stuff would be fine if the Sounders had a good place to play and we had some other games that mattered. But at this point, the cake doesn't exist. I'm a huge soccer fan, but I'm not going to shell out for an endless stream of meaningless friendlies played each year to satisfy the Seahawks goal of hosting some soccer games. According to recent articles, a few in Sounders management are trying to get a 5-10k seat stadium built in the area. That's great for the Sounders. But with Seahawks Stadium now open, the chances of getting a 20-25k seat facility around here to host the A-League or MLS Sounders, WCQs, College Cups, etc. are very small. The leaders of the soccer community just don't see a need for it. And you can bet the average sports fan is saying just play all soccer games in the new stadium, that's what taxpayers paid for.
Two questions. 1. Is the soccer field at Seahawks Stadium 66 or 70 yards wide? I have read both. 2. What is the latest on a Sounders stadium?
Haven't seen anything in the papers about a Sounders stadium lately. Useless info: one of the local paper's special sections (IIRC) on Seahawks Stadium mentioned that the NFL asks for all fields to have a 12" crown. Soccer prefers nothing. So, they compromised and the playing field is...8".
Will the crown influence FIFA's decision whether to certify the surface? Which MLS/NFL shared stadiums have crowns, and which don't? Did the crown affect play? (I didn't attend the match.) Here are FIFA's Recommended Installations: http://www.fifa.com/qualityconcept/installations_E.html