Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? If you read my reply you would see why I ignored the rest of your post. Nothing you said had any sort of merit or insight whatsoever to me after you stooped to personal attacks...and you STILL haven't learned, attacking me more. I won't stoop to the same level as you.
Regarding the football lines, I don't know what to tell you beside the fact there won't be football lines in March, April, May, June, July and some part into August. September/October/November, I guess we will be stuck with them. Regarding MLS switching to FIFA calender, I don't think it will happen. It is too cold in NE, NY, DC, Seattle, Denver, Columbus, Chicago in Dec, Jan, Feb to 'watch.' Unless MLS wants its attendance drop by 50% (even in SSS) it will not switch to FIFA calender. Everyone wants a SSS for the Sounders, who doesn't? Who would rather watch soccer in NFL stadium even a nice one like seahawk stadium rather than one like HDC? no one does. But the reality of the situation is this: no one is coming forth with the money to build a SSS in Seattle (there was a report about one but I haven't heard about it since). There is also no invest/owner. Paul Allen might come aboard and with it "Seahawk stadium" because he owns it. It would be an adaquate stadium for the MLS Sounders (not perfect but adaquate). Plan A (all the stars line up): SSS, a rich owner who is willing to spend $$$ and buy a MLS franchise, thus promoting to A-league Sounders to MLS. Plan B: Paul Allen-Seahawk stadium. (the revenue streams will go toward to team since he owns the stadium). Since plan A is way way way way way out of reach, plan B is the second best option to bringing top league soccer to Seattle and I can live with it.
Re: Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? Give me a "C"! Give me an "O"! Give me a "P"! Give me an "O"! Give me a "U"! Give me a "T"! What does that spell? COP-OUT! You could respond to the rest of my post without "stooping to the same level as me", but then you would have confront the fact which proved you wrong. So instead you use the "I'll take the high road" bit as a cop-out.
Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? Okay, looking at your post I can understand where you're coming from, with the investors and all. Look, I just want you to know that we are on the same page ( I think you already know this but I'm just making sure). We BOTH want pro-soccer in Seattle. I would love for nothing more than to see the Sounders back in professional soccer. If plan B is the way to get Seattle into pro soccer, so be it. But I still think that Seahawks stadium should be temporary, that's all. Every team that has entered or started with this league has played in huge football stadiums...and then eventually moved out (LA and Columbus). I just want Garber to let Paul Allen (if he's your I/O) know that we're taking this a lot more seriously than just having something to occupy the stadium with during the summer months. This is a young league that we're trying to develop that we want to have around permanently, and SSS are CRITICAL towards allowing that to happen. If Paul Allen were to build or help fund an SSS after say 6 years of the clubs operations with solid attendence numbers, then I would be really happy. I just don't want another situation like NE or KC where the teams are money-losing operations stuck in cavernous NFL stadiums way too big for soccer. At least, like you said, all concessions and parking at Seahawks stadium would go to the team and NOT the NFL franchise...that's very good indeed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? I've already responded to the points that you so eloquently put out for me with other posters in this thread. I would've responded to yours instead you decided to resort to cheap tactics instead of civil debate. Desperation responses like this are usually the first signs of defeat.
The stadias in Seattle are f'ing gorgeous and are jewels of the region. I haven't been to a game there (a Mariners game went into extra innings, and the traffic was horrific around the stadium and we got stuck in traffic and decided to bail on a Sounders game...) but walking around the city I was stunned by the # of ppl wearing jerseys from all over the globe, and not just the top Euro sides from the summer tournament but teams from Brazil, Mexico, Holland, Germany, Italy, etc. There seems to be a lot of soccer fans, but not the type of Euro snob that wouldn't "sink to the level of MLS." I just got the impression that Seattle would totally support an MLS franchise. Seattle used to be a blight on the sports scene. What the city has proven is that nice facilities combined w/ a decent product on the field garner support. The Mariners now routinely have crowds in excess of 38,000 on Monday and Tuesday nights!
What a crappy thread, people. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. The discussion will only be meaningful when an investor shows interest in bringing MLS to Seattle. That hasn't happened. This is all so academic it isn't even funny. That said...The Hawk would work fine for MLS. I find it funny that the only people who disagree are non-Seattle people who have never been to the stadium. I've been to a DC United/Rapids game at RFK, with 16,000 people, and to the Sounders/LA Open Cup game, with 8,000. Guess which one had better atmosphere?
These pictures are great and everything, but you aren't going to be putting up those kind of numbers for a game against the Burn...at least not anytime soon. I could post a bunch of pictures from Legion Field (my hometown stadium) of us hosting Olympic Soccer in '96 and selling out over 80,000 seats and it would mean nothing because it isn't MLS...as great at the Champions' tour was, that isn't going to translate to regular attendance any time soon. Soccer in enormous football stadiums (when empty) is depressing, regardless of how clever the design.
Clever design? Imagine sometime in the way distant future (say, 2010 or so) when Sounders FC need 45,000 seats for a playoff match. Then some will likely say "What a clever design the stadium has! Able to feel intimate at 20,000...but can seat more for big games. Wish we had that..." Please stop posting silly comments about a stadium YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO! As for Seattle/MLS generally...a couple of comments: A. Seattle doesn't need to "return" to pro soccer. WE HAVE A 2nd Division team right now, thank you. A team who beat San Jose and Tied SJ in 2003! We've got game, now. And it is PRO SOCCER, baby. B. We want to be First Division. Money stands in the way, not players or talent. C. This is all still very hypothetical, as Scoey points out, because the only credible leak has come from the quote from an AEG guy on USSoccerUK.com. Not exactly a press conference with banners streaming, is it? D. Still is fun to talk about it, though.
The Mariners put up incredible #s vs. some weak opponents... mainly b/c its stadium is a great venue for an evening of entertainment.
Okay, how about a non-silly comment about a stadium I haven't been to? Field turf ends the argument for me. I've been to Reliant Stadium in Houston and the grass they put down on top of the turf was awful, much less the turf itself. It is a crime for soccer to be played on an artificial surface, no matter what MLS, FIFA or anybody says. I've played on both, there is a difference. edit: same reason I don't want Houston to get a team.
Okay Portlander is going to weigh in here...(most of the Seattle fans know me well). It still confounds and saddens me that Seattle is mentioned ahead of Portland for a MLS franchise when all evidence points in the opposite direction. 1) Proven Support - Portland as a history of supporting our football clubs in far greater numbers than Seattle. The original Timbers drew massively and since their re-incarnation in 2001 the A-League Timbers have been 2nd in the league (behind Rochester) for attendance. 2) Stadium. PGE Park is a perfect size for an MLS club. Currently it seats 22K. We have to share it with a TripleA Baseball team right now but it is really NOT a baseball park. It is actually a better place to watch soccer than baseball - the sightlines are better. On top of that MLB is seriously looking at Portland and a part of that is building a new baseball stadium by 2006 or so. If that happens (still a big IF) then PGE Park could become a SSS facility. Anyone else catch how beautiful our stadium was for the semis of the WWC? They added seats to increase capacity to about 30K. Even if Baseball stayed the field is configured as such that there are no dirt running paths etc - I would take a dual use facility with pure soccer lines over a football stadium with gridlines ANY DAY! 3) Fans - The Timbers have the best supporters in the A-League and better than most MLS sides. Can you imagine how much crazier we would get with MLS competition coming to town every week? I think that Portland could gurantee a 15K average attendance without a problem and I would not be surprised if we hit 20K. 4) Less competition. Portlanders are dying for a major league professional sports franchise that is not full of criminals (Portland JailBlazers). A MLS team would be the only game in town for nearly it's entire season. The missing ingredient is of course the dude with the cash - Nike and Addidas are both based in Portland. It is such a shame that Phil Knight chooses to spend his money on the U of O over a professional side. I have been to Seattle many times for footy matches. Seahawks stadium is a gorgeous facility but it is just WAYYYY to big. The sounders averaged around 3,000 fans this year. It felt like you were rattling around in there (64,000 empty seats). You could put 15,000 in there and it would still feel like "minor league". I hate the way the MLS looks on T.V. with those giant football stadia. You add football gridlines to the mix and it is just BLECH! On MLS Wrap on Sunday John Harkes gave Portland some love and I think it is long overdue. We got a great thing going out here and it is time that MLS step up and recognize that the real city in the NW to expand to is Portland.
Uh, the actual numbers, pulled from the NASL homepage at http://home.att.net/~nasl/nasl.htm indicate quite otherwise: Seattle NASL attendances 1974 -- 13454 1975 -- 16826 1976 -- 23828 1977 -- 24228 1978 -- 22578 1979 -- 18997 1980 -- 24246 1981 -- 18224 1982 -- 12539 1983 -- 8317 Portland NASL attendances 1975 -- 14503 1976 -- 20515 1977 -- 13216 1978 -- 11803 1979 -- 11172 1980 -- 10210 1981 -- 10516 1982 -- 8786 Every year for which Portland and Seattle both had a team, Seattle outdrew Portland, including 1975 when the Sounders still played in much smaller Memorial Stadium. 1975, 1976, and 1982 are really the only years where its even close. Now, that said, I'd love to see Portland come into MLS the same year Seattle does. The rivalry is needed since there's no other MLS clubs within reasonable driving distance and no other natural rival (Colorado? San Jose? Puh-leeze). They've done a decent job with support at the A-League level, though the playing surface at PGE (complete with baseball seams) would definitely need an upgrade.
Is this really that important? To me, profitability is more important. Profitability brings a higher cap and better players. And thatwill look GREAT on TV. So? Who cares what they think? Like what? Please specify. Um, if it's the Revs/Wizards model, then the answer is yes. Are you paying any attention here? Except, the first two aren't money losing ventures (at least, not as bad as the other teams) and Colorado is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, you seem to think SSSs are free. They aren't. That's a cost right there. You're wrong. The league wants SSSs because they don't want to be renters, and it would be pretty damn foolish for MLS to build football stadiums. Just about as foolish as your post. Dude, you're obsessed with the image of looking good on TV, you don't understand the ownership situation in Seattle, and you think SSSs don't have costs.
Before either Seattle or Portland can enter MLS, they both need an investor/owner. Right now there is none over the horizon.
Okay so maybe "massively" was the wrong word to use but we supported our side when they were NASL and more importantly in today's world we support the A-League Timbers in strong numbers with ZERO promotions and an average team at best. I agree with you Eric that Portland without Seattle or vice versa would not make sense. Unfortunately it seems to be the argument right now. When laid down in 2001 the FieldTurf at PGE Park was good stuff. But over the last three years of constant use it has gotten more compacted. I wonder if it can be "fluffed" up? That said - I will take FieldTurf with a baseball seam or two (small seams folks this is not some giant gaping hole) with a clear pitch with only soccer lines on it over a NextTurf pitch with gridlines and endzones etc all of the thing any day. If Portland gets it's baseball stadium in 2006 then PGE Park can go to SSS with grass field like we saw for the WWC.
You think we were happy? You should've heard the complaints! A few points to consider though: the lines were laid down for a Seahawks preseason game - the rest of the year we had gorgeous soccer lines. We were told by the front office that there simply wasn't time to take up the lines for the open cup game and then repaint them for the next Seahawks event, and that it was fairly expensive for them to do.. so yeah, we had to suffer them for the last 5 home games, and it sucked.. but at least we didn't have them the REST of the year (unlike the Revs.. ugh) I imagine one point of negotiation for an MLS franchise being at the Hawk would be the lines, and I can't see removal of the gridiron not being budgeted for.. SSS VS The Hawk - Seattle has a political history IRT sports stadiums, and we're /not/ going to have a SSS until an MLS franchise proves itself. The Hawk was built primarily because of the soccer vote (and the vague promises from the MLS of "build it, and you'll have a team..") Yeah, I'd like a SSS, but the Hawk will just have to do for a few years. Once the team is established, proves itself as a drawn, /then/ we'll see investors appear to build a new SSS for us. (The Hawk's location and amenities VS the "intimacy" of a SSS... tough call, to be honest) Man, all of this is only so much mental wanking, anyways - I'll get more excited when we have an official announcement one way or the other. not holding my breath.. not really.. -eogan-
I endeavor to live with grid lines and the more-than-occasional problem with empty seats in cavernous stadia. The problem with the big stadia- try selling season tickets to it. Ain't happening. That means your expenses turn out to be debts, staffs have to work their guts out 24/7 to get walk-up sales, no certainties exist. With HDC (which is actually a bit too large, but that's tangential), the low crowd was almost 14,000, and only 5 of 15 dates ended up under 20,000. The low crowd probably indicates something close to the number of season tickets.
In a perfect world, someone steps up and gets us both into MLS for 2007. Both cities are able to support A-League without drawing fans from each other (ie - few people from Portland are attending Sounders games, and vice-versa) I keep wondering why Nike isn't pushing for MLS in Portland.. -eogan-
Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? This is a little naive. I can tell you that, with the MetroStars, the football lines at Giants Stadium were supposed to have been removed for each Metros game. In fact, Giants Stadium was going to be a showcase for FieldTurf, Inc. to demonstrate how versatile and durable its product is. Of course, the football lines were not removed. Whether it was because the Metros or the NJSEA were too cheap to pay for it or because, in fact, the technology doesn't actually exist to do this I don't know. All I'm saying is don't assume the football lines can and will be removed if an MLS team plays at Seahawk Stadium. I may be a little cynical about this, but my assumption is that wherever an MLS team shares a stadium with an NFL team, the MLS team will have to put up with yardlines, NFL sidelines, endzone logos and possibly a giant NFL logo at midfield. I don't care what promises are made by the local MLS investor, the NFL owner or the operator of the stadium, when push comes to shove, the football lines will stay.
Cheap shots will get you nowhere. If you are satisfied with MLS "settling" with huge stadiums and not making efforts to show the rest of the nation that this is a league that can survive on its own with our own talent and our own facilities to play in, then you go ahead and do it. But don't try to rain on anyone elses parade and bring your pessimistic point of view with it. The good thing about all of this, is that MLS WILL survive as a league, because my thinking and opinion is the same of Garber, Hunt, Anschutz, and Kroenke...not you.
This thread, like many at BS, seems to have turned into pissing contest, but I would like to make a few points that most would agree on: (1) I can't think of a better city to put MLS than Seattle. It has it all--fans, traditions, and the right location to expand the league. I mean, there's not even any question what to call the team. (2) It would be better to have a SSS than use the Hawk. OK, it's a great stadium but a SSS is better tofr the fans and the team's finances. It gives a "sense of place" that you just can't get sharing someone else's home. (3) We probably won't get a SSS in Seattle in the forseeable future. Is this a deal killer? I doubt it. Seattle is such a desirable city that I could probably live with another NFL stadium. It's too important to expand the league at this time and I have no doubt a team there would be successful in the long run. Persobnlly, I hope it happens but there's still the issue of the I/O that has to be resolved. But put a team in Seattle. Wait a year and then put one in Portland. Wait another year and put one in Vancouver. In a few years, this 3-way derby could really be something.