Lost a few posts, but this thread lives on. The discussion had turned to who was doing the pursuit of MLS. Besides First and Goal and the Sounders, the following agencies seem to have authority for this: Seattle Sports Commission (formerly named the Sports and Events Council of Seattle-King County) Tacoma Pierce County Sports Commission Then there's sports entrepreneur Bob Walsh, who brought the 1990 Goodwill Games, NCAA basketball Final Fours, and a ton of other events to Seattle. Former P-I sports columnist Steve Rudman wrote a largely fawning biography of Walsh in 2001, which I'm currently reading. It doesn't talk much about soccer per se, but it describes the unorthodox methods in which Walsh networks, impresses people, and gains business. The book repeatedly rips the Sports and Events Council for failing to land the Super Bowl, World Cup, and the US Olympic Trials in numerous sports, among other events. In particular, Rudman writes that the council "had made a comically stumbling run at a Major League Soccer franchise," and states that local leaders "created the Sports Council with the clear intent of running Bob Walsh out of business." While this one-sided account should be taken with a grain of salt, Walsh clearly had landed more sporting events during his reign in the 1980s than the bumbling council has since its 1990 creation. The NCAA liked him so much that they asked him to provide a permanent home for the NCAA D-1 men's soccer championship, which was held in the Kingdome for 2 years and the T-Dome for 1. Walsh has lots of irons in the fire in Russia and (former Soviet) Georgia, but he recently made news in trying to bring the Army-Navy football game to Seattle, so maybe he's paying more attention to sports again. He's known mostly for one-off events, but he did help Vancouver get the NBA in 1994. A plus for us is that Donald Horowitz (who is related to Russell Horowitz) is Walsh's lawyer and close business partner, and Russian scholar Emory Bundy (who's a teammate of Matt Griffin) is another associate.
to be honest with you, i think Seattle deserve a MLS team as soon as possible. They hava a lot of Crazy soccer fans there. I will support it without thinking too much about it.
Anyone thats in the sounders supporters group can you PM me please...I would like to get season tickets and sit will you all this season...I can't wait... Matt Reaser Tumwater, WA
Bob Walsh's company owns several prime pieces of real estate in Tbilisi as part of a sweetheart privatization deal. In addition, his company is in the dairy processing and vitamin business. It is also provides humanitarian assistance in Russia and Georgia. Walsh established contacts with several Soviet officials as promoter of the Goodwill Games. He is a close friend of President Eduard Shevardnadze, supposedly has celebrity status in Georgia, and has enough influence in the country that he got laws restricting foreign real estate ownership changed within two days. You can find more info in the biography and at Bob Walsh's website (linked in my previous post). Why do you ask?
I'd like to invite all the Seattle people to join us in the USA Supporters section for the Japan match. Let's all get together to put on a great show. Get your tickets here On a related note, how tolerant would Sewhawk Stadium be of smoke bombs, confetti, streamers and the like? Sachin
Grass for the Japan match Any word on how they will put in grass for the US - Japan match? Will they lay down temporary sod like they did in Portland for the US and WWC matches (which was not too good)? Will they put in trays over the field turf or can they take the plastic out (I think there's a layer of asphalt under it) and lay down dirt and grass sod? March is not exactly fast growing time for grass in the NW. Whatever they do, I'd like to see them leave it in as long as they can for the Sounders.
The pamphlet I picked up at the stadium open house this last summer seemed to indicate that those things weren't allowed, in compliance with NFL rules. However, this is obviously a non-NFL event. At the Sounders match last year we were allowed to use the Sounders' drum and hang some banners...both things which were listed in the pamphlet as being prohibited (in complaince with NFL rules, of course.) Come to think of it, the pamphlet pretty much seemed to be written with the assumption that the reader was going to be visiting the stadium via attending a football game. All in all, I'd say it'd behoove somebody to contact stadium officials to make sure, but I'd venture to guess that streamers and confetti might get the green light, but I'm not sure about smoke bombs.
I'd work under the assumption that they would not be tolerant of smoke bombs, but who knows. I guess it would be worth contacting them to find out. The confetti and streamers should be no problem. They do seem to have issues with long metal poles, though, so a flag on a pole could be banned. I think smoke bombs, when used tactfully, are awesome. I support the use of them in the USA Supporter's Section, despite what F'n'Goal might say. Since you will be sitting in the open-ended North End, the smoke should clear out pretty easily, too. How convenient. - Paul
Flags on poles were allowed for the Sounders-Vancouver match, although I don't think anyone brought one in. Confetti and streamers shouldn't be a problem.
I already signed up for the list and hope you guys bring a bunch of people for a good show. I'll probably be doing some of the liason work with Sams Army but think of myself more in line with the type of support I've been hearing you lot put forth. I'd like to work with you guys where it makes sense. However I'll probably be in the SA section because I'll have a couple of people in tow who aren't as fanatical (working on them though). I'd encourage people to give this group a look see though. As for smoke bombs, I'd love it if it could be pulled off, but if the security is anything at all like it was at Safeco, all I can say is good luck. They threw a fit every time someone cussed, let alone stood, sang, or whatnot Confetti & streamers shouldn't be a problem, we didn't have any issues for the Sounders match there, and even if we did, I'd still say f-em and bring 'em anyway.
Who at the Stadium or the Sounders should I talk to? I'm not going to ask about the smoke bombs. That's one of things it's better to surprise them about. Besides, I don't know where to buy them in Seattle Sachin
If you're looking for stadium policies and such, it should be posted somewhere on http://www.firstandgoal.com. Although what you'll find is mostly aimed at NFL games. Not sure what role the Sounders are playing in the USA-Japan match (I've not seen anything attributed to them yet in the papers or elsewhere), but try emailing Bart Wiley (bartw@seattlesounders.net), he might know.
Re: Grass for the Japan match I've typed up below the August 2001 testimony of the Seahawks' training camp groundskeeper to the WSPSA board. The testimony answers questions of ability more than willingness, but you might find it enlightening anyway. I'd be interested in what the Tumwater quarterback has to say about the Lacey field. === Ms. Hine: Thank you, Sara Jane. Gene Howe. Mr. Howe: Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Gene Howe. I operate Sports Turf Northwest out of Woodinville, Washington. And I'm here for -- to give a couple of ideas on natural grass. I do grow it. I'm mostly here because of a certain statement I read in the newspaper having to do with the phrase of not wanting to play in mud in November and December. I would also like to tell you about a unique product that I grow and obviously answer any questions that you may have. The very best athletic fields are made out of a layer of sand 12 to 18 inches deep. It has to be a specific certain type of sand. The defense of nature and soil physics it is impossible for sand to make mud. Anybody that's driven -- you know, walked on the ocean beach can testify you're not walking in mud. You are walking in wet sand. So the idea of playing -- having mud in a football situation is, you know, not possible in a sand field. If it is muddy there's soil particles involved in the sod or it is not maintained properly. I can get into -- I'm not used to talking -- I talk about turf a lot. I'm not used to talking for a short time. So I'm trying to keep things minimal. I do go around the state and talk about athletic field construction and maintenance. So this is a little different for me. But the idea of a perched water table, I won't delve into greatly, but anytime you put a finer particle on top of a coarser particle you have a problem of water penetration, root penetration. You have -- for example, if you put soil-based sod on sand it would not knit. I grow sod, athletic field sod, on the same sand that a field is built out of. I import the sand and laser grade it all out so it's an even depth, and it's the same sand used for athletic fields and putting greens. It's called WU specified sand. In 1986 I had the opportunity to start this process kind of after a meeting with Dr. Roy Gross and Mike McCormick, then the general manager of the Seahawks, where I grew the practice facility, the sod for the practice facility up in Kirkland. It was planted in '87. The installation began in May in hopes of having it knit down for their summer camp starting in mid July. In eight weeks we had eight to ten inches of root penetration being on sand. At that time there was some 120 people, men, large men, six hours a day, six days a week for several weeks before they had a break, and there was no wear on the turf except for approximately a square foot that I did replace. I continued a full maintenance program up there for a full year, and then from then on I was contracted to do the primary maintenance once a year for the next eight years or so -- eight to ten years. It got a little strange with the changing of ownerships and that type of thing. The sod did very well -- in it's tenth year it started to have a little trouble. And they replaced it last year which would have been its twelfth year. There are two fields I would like to mention. Mt. Si High School up in Snoqualmie has used my sod, and besides that they have a commitment to maintenance. They don't just maintain it right. They have a commitment to maintain it right, which is critical. Last year according to them they had 60 games on the field in varsity and JV football, boys' and girls' soccer, they have Sounders exhibition and everybody seems to love the field. If the board members would like a tour of it I would be glad to take you up there and show it to you. The other one I would like to mention is down south in the Lacey area. There's three high schools that play on the stadium. We installed it in July so it's a little nervous time as to how it would do. They had 15 games on it the first year, and one of the high schools did well, went to state, and they have an average line weight -- interior line weight -- of 300 pounds which is a little unusual for high school. Ms. Hine: They grow them big in Lacey? The Witness: You've got it. I planted five acres of sod using the specifications I got from Turner Construction. I passed around a list of -- a little schedule that I kind of played with using this year's Seahawk schedule, because I didn't have next year's. By using this year's Seahawks schedule I worked backwards to when the turf should be planted as per their specifications, as to when I would prefer to plant it and when it was planted. Their specifications were good except they wanted out in nine months which is physically impossible. I gave you a sample, and there's six or seven more over there if people want to take it home. I'm not -- I carried it in. I'm not carrying it out. Sand by the way is a lot of rock. It's very heavy. Anyway, if the field had been planned to be on natural grass there is one issue that I'm sure you have discussed in the past and that is shade. I'm not a real big fan of, you know, the new kind of snake oils for trying to make grass do things that it can't. I'm really a fan of mother nature and it can only do what it can do. Everybody is talking about how many games and that type of thing. Yes, it does need rest during certain times. It does -- it can only do so much. But when you get a foot of root matter in that field it's pretty tough to tear it out, or if you have 18 inches of sand 18 inches of roots. But if you also give me too much shade where nature can't do its job that's a real big issue. So I really appreciate coming down here and talking to you. I just really wanted to -- I didn't know when and where to bring this up, and when I saw this in the paper several times about playing in mud I had to say something, because something is not right. Thank you very much. Ms. Hine: Thank you very much, Gene. Mr. Howe: If you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them. Ms. Hine: We appreciate your information and the sample. Any questions? Bob. Mr. Dilger: I have one question. If there was temporary sod put down over the artificial turf would this be suitable? Mr. Howe: Yes. Mr. Dilger: You could do that? Mr. Howe: We could have to talk about it. Ms. DeYoung: It can't be sand? Mr. Howe: If you're talking about a tray system you can do it with sand. If you're talking about laying sod over the field turf, which I don't see that working -- Mr. Dilger: There would be a rubber pad first. Mr. Howe: If there was a rubber pad it would have to be soil based sod cut six inches deep. Mr. Dilger: Four inches? Mr. Howe: The sand sod would not work if it was directly over that. It has to grow. It doesn't require weight to do its job. It requires time and roots. Mr. Dilger: This is temporary we're talking about now? Mr. Howe: Right So then I would say, no, it would not work. Mr. Dilger: Thank you.
Blown opportunity Here's a timely profile of Bob Walsh: Can-do promoter is back in the game; Seattle Times; January 05, 2003 === The Sounders may have missed the boat on funding their project. In 1999, the Legislature paid back the other counties for allowing public subsidies for the Mariners stadium. It let cities and counties pay for their own projects with sales tax refunds as long as they started a public facilities district, planned a boondoggle--er, regional center--costing at least $10 million, and commenced construction by the beginning of this year. (The lawmakers extended the deadline to January 1, 2004 last year.) Everett is building a $62.5-million hockey arena, Tacoma is building a still-more expensive convention center, and even Lynnwood and Edmonds have their own projects going. If my facts are correct, the legislation only applies to counties with a population less than 1 million - in other words, anywhere except King County; therefore, the Sounders' planned complex in Kent wouldn't be eligible. Lacey, which is trying to get its act together with Olympia, wants a recreation complex that probably would be most compatible with the Sounders' target, but being 60 miles south of Seattle, Kasey Keller's hometown is out of the question. Here are descriptions of the PFD concept, a summary of PFD projects around the state, the maneuvering in Olympia and Lacey, and a pie chart of Everett's hockey arena funding: Public Facilities Districts (PFDs); Municipal Research & Services Center (MRSC) of Washington (UW government research website); September 2002 Map and description of PFD projects around the state; Spokane Spokesman-Review Competing projects fight for public funds; The Olympian; November 10, 2002 Who Pays?; Everett Public Facilities District; 2002
Ticket sales, state legislation, and high school athletics Last week, it was reported that 6,500 seats had been sold for the US-Japan friendly. Why so few? 30,000 had been sold about one and a half months before the US-Russia match in 1994. We're about at that milepost now, and that figure isn't close. Who's in charge of promoting this game? --- House Rep. Sam Hunt (D-Olympia) just reintroduced a bill to ban Seahawks blackouts. Last year, a similar bill passed nearly unanimously in the House, but died in a Senate committee. The bill is likely to pass the House again, so we should piggyback an MLS demand onto it. If the representative's drivel about broken football promises -- however nonexistent -- prove compelling, it shouldn't be that hard to demand action on MLS's guarantee, which was authentic. Start contacting your legislators... --- Seattle school levies will return to the ballot in 2004, so if you live in the city (I don't) and still want to do something about Memorial Stadium, now's the time to act. The turf will be replaced this year, so the football constituency should be satisfied. If there's time to make a proposal before the campaign begins, soccer people will have to go it alone or team with another constituency. Seattle high school track-and-field has been looking for a downtown facility for over 3 decades now, plus their facilities citywide are substandard. While I don't know much about the city's soccer field situation, it might worthwhile to propose constructing a wide-ovaled stadium across the street, to the former Metro bus barn. Since several bonds and levies that would've added a track to Memorial Stadium have failed, the T&F folks would probably be happy to accommodate soccer if it would help them, and the UT-Austin and UCLA articles said that the European-style ovals are preferred anyway. Also, the city/Seattle Center was partially going to fund a proposed stadium site swap in 1994, so they might offer subsidies again. The new facility could have retractable seats over the track for soccer games, like at the Stade de France and one of the Japanese World Cup stadiums. One problem is that the district probably will want to reduce the capacity of the new stadium. I'm not sure how to counter this. In Bob Walsh's aborted Olympics bid, field hockey (which requires a 60x100yd field) would have been held at a renovated Memorial Stadium; if the Olympics are attempted again, an 18,000-seat facility would be appropriate. I doubt that dangling MLS again will work. Maybe the Sounders would be satisfied with the 6,000-seat stadium envisioned in the site swap. House Bill 1740: Prohibiting professional football blackouts Capital Levy Programs; Seattle Public Schools Meeting Minutes; Board of Park Commissioners (City of Seattle); February 14, 2002 (info about the city track situation is under West Seattle Stadium) Memorial stadium relocation a step closer -- schools to draft agreement for move to bus-barn site; Seattle Times; July 7, 1994 Bond failure extends gridlock -- Metro league track teams will continue to battle for room to run at tri-meets; Seattle Times; March 21, 1994 (The last two articles can be found at Washington State Newsstand. I think this link is an unrestricted gateway - no library cards or passcodes required. Click CONTINUE, set the date to the proper search range, copy the article title into the search box, and then click Search.)
Judging by the numbers, one might think the Sounders... Those are disappointing numbers. Was that in one of the local papers?
6500 is a bit disappointing, but it's early yet and really no promotion of this game has taken place yet. I think when its all said and done, the numbers will be just fine. YTFC, how 'bout them Glovers, still topping the Conference, on to League footy next year
I haven't got my tickets yet, though I'm planning to this weekend, because I'm waiting to hear how many I need to buy. I imagine there'll be more of a "buzz" as we move into March. Maybe we'll start to hear about the game on the FSNW report, and stuff like that. I think every nats game is a big deal, but maybe last year's got more play because it had been so long since the team was last here. It certainly seems like nobody is promoting it. Perhaps First & Goal just thinks they need to open the gates and the fans will stream in. Might this represent F & G's "commitment" to the soccer fans? Host a few games each year (U.S., ManU), if they can outbid the M's, and open the place up for the Sounders? Better than nothing, but I expect more. The following article might be of more interest to those outside of the Seattle area who aren't familiar with the whole story. It's not the end all, but gives a decent (and skeptical) overview of how the stadium came to be. Soccer is only mentioned in passing (soccer votes, the switch to FieldTurf). The writer could have spiced up the piece by bringing up MLS' promise of a team. After Further Review-Seattle Weekly
I walked right into that comment, YTFC. Here's where the figure comes from: Get up close and personal for U.S.-Japan; Seattle P-I; Saturday, February 1, 2003 I don't think the other 2 friendlies were promoted well, either, so the ticket total had me worried. The issue is moot because the match cancellation. Still, I'm curious if they just use a youth soccer association, the inept King County sports and events council, or an independent promoter. pugetsoundmls, The timing of the Seattle Weekly article is quite coincidental. I just received the minutes of the November 2002 PSA board meeting. Along with a notice requiring a response to the board to continue receiving the meeting minutes, the mail contained this nugget: She (Chairwoman Lorraine Hine) also announced that there would be a fifteen-minute recess followed by an executive session of the Board to meet with legal counsel to discuss potential lititgation involving legal risks from the proposed action or current practice where public discussion of the legal risks would likely result in adverse legal or financial consequences to the PSA. No action by the Board was anticipated as a result of the executive session. plus this jawdropper: Vice-Chair (Fred) Mendoza recently received the "Keeper of Promises Builder of Dreams" award from various soccer organizations. and an item addressing your concerns about F&G's commitment: Vice-Chair Mendoza reported that he is working with First & Goal staff to market the stadium for future soccer events. The following Peter Callaghan article describes another transparency issue with Allen and the board: Allen must open books on Seahawks, deputy AG rules; Tacoma News Tribune; Thursday, February 13, 2003 Maybe with the AG and the Armenian hotelier after them, Allen and his protectors on the stadium board are starting to sense the wolves at their door. That would explain why their KGB/CIA-type openness is growing even tighter. If the Seattle Parks Board can post biweekly meeting agendas and minutes on its website, there's no reason why the PSA can't publish their bimonthly meetings on the Internet. Instead, with the latest site redesign, they removed the list of resolutions available by mail, no longer mention that the minutes can be ordered, and try to get rid of their remaining subscribers. Also, when I requested the Sounders lease, the PSA said that it was between the Sounders and F&G, so they didn't know anything about it. That's hard to swallow. If the Attorney General's office prevails, maybe we'll get to learn the details anyway. The Seattle Weekly has always been strongly anti-stadium subsidies, so I think they wanted to focus on attacking Mr. Allen (though I agree with everything in the article). I guess Major League Soccer isn't an enticing enough target. But yes, we could've contributed several column inches to that article. Here's another dagger in the pro-stadium argument: the Kingdome's soccer field was 70 yards wide (thanks USRufnex) - just like Seahawks Stadium and, for that matter, Safeco Field. For big events, temporary grass could've gone in the Dome also. So what exactly did we get? Anyone want to take a rip at this snippet? But, Allen's First & Goal spokesperson Suanne Pelley contends, Allen delivered as promised: "Absolutely yes—on time and on budget. The Seahawks are still in Seattle, which is what the voters really approved."
In the timing is everything dept., I bought my tickets to the friendly Sat. morning, only to hear about the cancellation Sat. night. Hopefully we'll get a replacement for Japan. I asked the woman at the ticket window who was promoting the game. First & Goal? No, she said, but possibly Paul Allen. At that, I knew there was no point in asking anything else. When mentioning that the reporter missed on mentioning MLS in the article, I was thinking along the lines of how the PSA and First & Goal agreed to pursue a franchise. This article could have provided an update on how that's going. More so on their efforts (or lack thereof) than of MLS' deception. Also in the article, "Allen keeps all stadium and parking-garage revenue..." We've all agreed the Sounders wouldn't be in there if they didn't get a deal, but I'm curious as to how favorable it is. And if those terms are for a short or long term outlook. So I guess all beer sales will go to Allen. But I assume the Sounders worked it out so they get something out of selling their own merchandise on gamedays, for example. It only seems appropriate that Mendoza would get an award from (youth?) soccer organizations. As has been mentioned on this thread before, either this area lacks soccer leadership, or it has the wrong people leading the way. Just ridiculous. We've got an A-League club, stadium (sort of), wealth, soccer history, location (lack of nearby MLS teams) and a lot of other things other regions can't match, and we still can't make things happen. I'm still concerned that future soccer events may just be more exhibitions. I'd like to see stuff that counts: Sounders in MLS, WCQs, Gold Cup. The next couple of years will give us a good idea of what type of progress these guys are making, with upcoming qualifiers and the next edition of the GC. And since Allen still hasn't found an appropriate naming rights deal, maybe he should let the Sounders try to find something. This writer has nothing but positives to say about the stadium as a soccer venue (about 3/4 way through): Summer of soccer-ESPN
Yes, PSA and F&G's inaction are also noteworthy. Does F&G's legal requirement to market the stadium to MLS entail more than, say, an annual cold call? And how is the PSA supposed to provide oversight when it says that it can't examine the Sounders' lease with F&G? Even that claim is non-credible, since board vice-chair Mendoza is legal counsel for the Sounders. Who believes that the team would've signed the contract without consulting its attorneys?! I do wonder what will happen to the Sounders. If Seahawks Stadium goes poorly, does the team go back to Memorial, or do the owners close shop? The Laura Vecsey P-I article (posted early in this thread) described the new ownership. It's not surprising to see Scott Oki leave, but being replaced by 5 new investors could be worrisome; the owners might be stretched thin, as Neil Farnsworth wouldn't need that many co-owners if just 1 or 2 were wealthy enough to handle the losses. Relocation to the new stadium strikes me as a desperate move, though I could be wrong. Sorry about the pessimism. === Here's more information about Memorial Stadium. First, concerning this year's turf replacement, the Seattle school district is estimating that it'll have to pay about $900,000, and it is currently requesting bids from contractors. Second, about Greenway's suggestion to buy Memorial Stadium, the school board last month presented a list of candidate properties to be sold, and Memorial wasn't mentioned. Finally, the stadium is expected to appear on the February 2004 Buildings, Technology, and Academics (BTA II) levy, with $6.0 million in renovations currently earmarked to Reroof and modernize locker rooms, upgrade concession facilities to improve health and safety, modernize timekeeping devices and press area, and complete ADA upgrades. The public can still add input to these issues. The BTA II levy lasts 6 years, so this is the last regular chance to influence the renovation process until 2010. Here are the sources, if anyone is interested. These links require Acrobat Reader 5.0: Capital Fund 2002-03 Adopted Budget; July 10, 2002 Bid No. B01309: Synthetic Turf Replacement at Memorial Stadium; Date of Bid Opening: March 6, 2003 Financial Recovery Plan: Rebuilding Our Reserves; January 16, 2003 BTA II Levy Update ; February 3, 2003 BTA II Levy Initiative: $53.5 million Academic Component; February 3, 2003