Reliant stadium is natural turf all the time, maybe they laid down new sod for the soccer game? Seahawks stadium should replace their turf with grass, there is no reason (excepting Mike Holmgren) for artificial turf to be there.
The thing is it already IS something special. These three A-League sides are fierce rivals, the three teams average in the top 10 in the league in attendance (Portland 4th, Vancouver 5th, Seattle 8th). Why re-invent the wheel? Just upgrade these three franchises to MLS status and the league has another three teams that are profitable and drawing well. Two (Vancouver and Portland) already have potential SSS that would need some changes (expansion in Vacnouver, getting baseball it's own home in Portland) but nothing overly expensive. Instead MLS just seems to refuse to look at A-League sides as predictors of MLS success. It's weird. Toronto has shown zero ability to support the Lynx yet that is where MLS has talked about a team. Montreal avg 2nd in the A-League last year (7,900 a game) and Vancouver 5th (4292). Same goes for the American locations. San Diego and Cleveland? Not sure about Cleveland but San Diego has proved incapable of supporting an A-League side. But then they talk about Houston - as if putting a footy team in a 80,000 seat stadium is really a good idea. It is just really strange - yeh yeh the investors are an issue but MLS seems to pitch weird places and not the logical ones.
That is weird, but they definately had field problems the night of that USA-Mexico game. check this out: (credit: Andy Mead/YCJ)
Re: Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? I'm glad I read the rest of your post, because the opening line was.. well, a tad patronizing. Note that I didn't say they would or wouldn't be removed, only that it would be a point of negotiation. -eogan-
Seems like MLS is on the slow-n-steady path. I would love nothing more than to see all 3 of us (Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver) get teams, though (just in case I end up moving north of the border after the '04 elections.. ) I've got to believe that the people working for MLS that make such "illogical" decisions about placement etc have valid reasons based on information we as fans aren't privy to. *shrug* (I've got an extra pair of rose-coloured glasses, if anyone wants 'em) -eogan-
Certain cities wouldn't go for a AAA status, only major league. Vancouver, Seattle and Portland capitalize on 3 franchises that have been around in name for a few decades. (I think...) San Diego and Sacramento aren't A League material, but either would/will do fine w/ an MLS squad. Personally, I think Seattle would do best, but AEG/MLS haven't called me (yet!) for my opinion.
If Paul Allen is involved in a Seattle ownership group that is approved by MLS, then Seahawks Stadium would be Sounders FC's permanent home, for say the next 25 years. Why else would he want to get involved, than to get some use out of his stadium in the summer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seattle: Under the Radar and on to the Pitch? Nice try, Captain Cop-out. Declaring oneself the victor is the ultamate desperation response. It is a tactic adopted by somebody who is outmatched in a battle of wits and unwilling to graciously accept defeat. In short, it is the tactic of morons. Hey Einstein, explain this: how can I have been "defeated" when all you've done is cop-out with stuff like "I won't respond to personal attacks" and "I won't stoop to the level"? You have yet to engage in debate with me, so wherein lies the source of my so-called defeat? And speaking of debate, when one side lays out an arguement and the other side refuses to respond with counterpoint, conventional debate rules would say that the second party is the one that is defeated. I put forth an arguement, and you have repeatedly refused to respond with counterpoint (most likely because there are no possible valid points you could make). I'm really disappointed. I had secretly hoped that you would prove to be capable of intellegent discussion and I would have to apologize for my initial impressions of you. Alas, you have only proven that my intial impressions were right on the mark.
Stick to the subject. http://www.seattlesounders.net/news/?cat=1&id=109 Here's a portion: The Seattle Sounders, in conjunction with Seahawks Stadium, today announced their plans to play the 2004 season in Seahawks Stadium. The one-year contract contains subsequent year options that may keep the Sounders in the downtown facility through the 2006 season. “After pouring over several options and looking at what was best for soccer in Seattle and the Sounders organization, the Sounders decided that Seahawks Stadium made the most sense,” said Sounders general manager Adrian Hanauer. “Seahawks Stadium is the best venue in the region for professional soccer,” said Sounders head coach Brian Schmetzer. “The pitch, locker rooms, sight lines, location, it has it all.” Sounders management and ownership stays committed to bringing the highest level of soccer to the Pacific Northwest. Tod Lieweke, the new CEO of the Seattle Seahawks and Seahawks Stadium, brings the same passion for soccer to Seattle. Lieweke began his professional sports career working managing the Kansas City Comets of the Major Indoor Soccer League (MISL) from 1982 to 1987. “We are pleased to have the Sounders returning to Seahawks Stadium,” said Lieweke. “We pride ourselves on having not only the greatest NFL stadium but also an extraordinary soccer facility. We applaud Sounders ownership for their grass roots commitment to the soccer community”
Well, going by the information from Bart Wiley and Gary Boyle, F&G and the Sounders are in negotiations with a potential investor who's currently involved with the Galaxy and is related to a F&G executive. Sounds like Tim Leiweke (brother of Seahawks CEO Tod Leiweke) to me. They also said that the mystery investor would go public when Seattle was announced as an MLS expansion frontrunner. Then Sounders fans were told to look for an announcement concerning MLS after MLS Cup '03. One might conclude that these signs point Seattle MLS in '05 being announced at MLS Cup '03 with Tim Leiweke as the I/O, and then the Sounders' post-Cup announcement would probably detail how/if Seattle MLS would adopt the name & history of the Sounders. But wait, Tim Leiweke recently told a group of Galaxy ticket holders that Chivas USA and Cleveland were the two teams for '05. Then with in the last 48 hours, MLS muckity-muck Mark Abbott comes out and says that Cleveland isn't a lock. So what's going on here? Is Tim Leiweke's info accurate, and MLS wants to wait til Garber's MLS Cup announcement to make it official? Or is it possible that Tim Leiweke's leak is an attempt to gain leverage in negotions with First & Goal in regards to Seattle's MLS bid?
Not only was it not massive support most years the Sounders out drew the Timbers. Also if the pro baseball in Portland comes true, allowing PGE Park to become an SSS as you stated earlier than the Timbers will have competition during the summer from an MLB team. Finally, I believe PGE Park does not have FieldTurf it has NeXturf. You know the stuff that UofO tore out to replace with FieldTurf which is the turf at Seahawks Stadium and UofW stadium. All that being said I agree with your statement that Portland and Seattle would be sweet in the MLS and they both belong.
It's not wierd. Other places have investors willing to fork over the cash. Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver so far don't. If they did, they'd be in. I agree they'd be great for the league. But they need investors, and they can't simply be let in for free.
Done You: In all of your comments that I've read, about 70-80 percent of it are cheap-shots and insults towards me. Is that what your definition of debate is? This was not "battle of wits", it was a barrage of insults and cheap-shots. And I don't debate with people who use these sorts of tactics. Everyone in this thread who I've discussed this issue with has taken any personal insults and attacks OUT of the picture. You haven't, which is why I refuse to, from this post on, acknowledge you in any way shape or form. I know I'm already contributing to this thread getting off-topic so I will end it here, but I wasn't in the least, planning on just "going away" without voicing my opinion.
If a stadium is 80% empty your still drawing league average crowds.. so does seeing the stadium 80% empty really matter? no, tickets are still the same price and the same amount of fans coming out to see the game. Moving to a 25/30k tiny stadium is a great way to give a false perception of the game here in the states More false perceptions outside the current administration seams to be what this country has become all about. Stay in 60k+ stadiums and let the league grow around you.
Well Sempuukyaku now you know what is like dealing with Flounders Fans! With the exception of Eric they are not the nicest chaps in the world. It's why we call them the Sh$ttle Flounders. They’re Flat! They’re Round! They Flap on the Ground Sh$ttle Flounders! Sh$ttle Flounders!
Sounderfan was okay, but the other guy wasn't. I'd love for you guys to have an MLS team also. What is the situation with PGE park again?
I don't think that having a 25/30k gives a false impression at all. You have to understand that that's a LOT of people to be attending a soccer game in this country anyway, especially if that's what this league averages. Also, with the exception of VERY few, most huge football stadiums simply are not meant for soccer. Fans too far from the field, fields not large enough, etc. And I think it's more important from a business aspect, not necessarily an aesthetics aspect, to stay away from NFL stadiums and opt for soccer-specific facilities.
Sempuukyaku, You realize you are basically saying MLS should expand at a rate of about one team every 15 or so years, don't you? How many SSSs have been created for teams that previously played in football stadiums? How many possible stadiums are on the horizon for MLS teams that currently play in football stadiums? Now how many such stadiums have been built, or might be built, for MLS teams that right now don't exist? Maybe Cleveland. So since 1996, and for the foreseeable future, there's one maybe and that's it. MLS needs to set up teams in cities before it's realistic to talk about stadiums in any of them. That means playing in whatever facilities are initially available. If you consider MLS expansion important than there is simply no other realistic option. As for Seahawks Stadium, 15,000 or so would be fine for the fans in the stands in terms of atmosphere. On TV? I don't know. Could some random person flip by ESPN2 and think, "Wow. MLS must be struggling! Look at those empty steets!"? Maybe some idiot incapable of keeping things in perspective would think so. But there is nothing MLS can do about such people. Hell, watching LA-San Jose last weekend in a bar someone saw the Home Depot Center and commented about how MLS is certainly small time given that they play in such a tiny stadium. Moral of the story? As long as the stadiums make MLS look like something besides the NFL, there are people who will assume the league is struggling. Ignore it or deal with it.
I've seen five or six Mexican league games with American Football lines on the field during the game, here in Mexico. I'm talking First division, not lesser Divisions either. I agree it sucks but it's hardly the kiss of death. I hope Seattle and Houston get teams in 2006 rather than the smaller Rochester market. I know their fans are hardy, but Houston is the biggest market without a team, and is really pretty important as an MLS TV market. Rochester is the king of the A league along with the Battery. Taking them out of the A League is not the right thing for all of soccer. Adding Seattle, Houston, Philly, and Cleveland, well those are bigger steps that must be taken for soccer.
Re: Done Of course 70-80% of my comments that you read are "cheap-shots and insults" because YOU IGNORE THE REST OF MY POSTS. You'd probably have that figure up towards 100% with your selective filtering if you didn't have to account for articles like "and" and "the"! Ironically, half the stuff you list is not directed directly at you. And given your penchant for including any observation people make about you as "personal attacks", you seem to have the broadest definition of "personal attacks" known to man. Which begs the question: If you're so hypersensitive (which I don't truely believe you are, I just think you're using it as a cop-out so you don't have to admitt that you are wrong), then what are you doing on an internet message board with hundreds of other people? I'm curious to see which part(s) of Justin O's post you spin as "personal attacks" so you don't have to acknowledge the rest of his post which, like so many others on this thread, point out the errors of your position. You're right in that none of the discussion between us has classified as debate, despite my repeated attempts to get you to respond to the points I made in my original post. Instead, you've continued to hide behind your little martyr act. In fact, I don't think you've participating in any discussion on this thread in such a manner that would classify such discussion as "debate"...you've either repeated your tired mantra of "SSS or bust!" or accused people of using personal attacks. You say that you weren't planning on going away without expressing your opinion. Well, you've expressed your opinion. Engage somebody, anybody, in intellegent discussion (without falling back on your tired cop-out tactics), please. If you can't, well, you've expressed your opinion, so you really don't have any other reason for sticking around. BTW, the proper way to deal with cheap shots is to not acknowledge them. For example, Finnegan took a cheap shot at Sounders fans. Yet I refrain from responding (except, of course, in so far as to provide you this example.)
I have posted this before: Based on A-League support PORTLAND is a better choice than Seattle for the NW's first MLS side. For some reason (TV share, likely) MLS love the idea of Seattle. The Sounders low attendance average seems of little consequence to them. It doesn't hurt that Seattle has teams in 3 other Major League Sports. MLS may want that professional association. MLS does have it's highest non-market TV rating in Seattle, though. In other words, more people watch MLS here (Seattle area) than in any place else in the country that doesn't already have a team (from Seattle Times).
Timbers have the benefit of being in a town with only one major league team (NBA's Trailblazers), whose season has little to no overlap with the Timbers'. The Timbers only real competition during the summer is the AAA minor-league baseball team they share a stadium with. Contrast with the Sounders, who are in a town with three major league teams (MLB's Mariners, NFL's Seahawks, and NBA's Supersonics). The Sounders compete directly against one of those major league teams for the area's sports entertainment (of the non-WWE variety) dollars, and that team just happens to be at their height of popularity. The sports markets in Seattle and Portland are very different. The Timbers benefit from favorable conditions in Portland. The Sounders, dispite competing directly against the Mariners jaggernaut, pull in respectable numbers. All in all, though, I definitely have to agree that MLS would benefit from having both markets.
Come on man, I have REPEATEDLY said that playing in Seahawks stadium as a temporary solution is okay. But it isn't okay as a permanent solution. Have I not said that? And have I furthermore not said that I'm ROOTING for Seattle to have pro-soccer again?? We have 10 teams in MLS. Out of those 10: 2 have stadiums up 1 is building it (shovels in ground and all) 1 already has renderings and plans and is just waiting for legislative action (MetroStars) 1 has been announced (Colorado) and 1 is publicly seeking a location for one (Chicago) That's 6 out of 10 MLS teams that either have or are making steps to obtain an SSS. THAT'S AWESOME! Garber is right. SSS'es are the key to the future of this sport. They draw crounds, enhance the soccer experience, and make money. Columbus is already in the black, and AEG predicts that LA will be in the black by the end of next season. This the reason behind the SSS. League stability and profit. That's why the MLS front office is doing everything it can to lure I/Os that are willing to invest long-term and help build facilities at the same time. I'm going to say it again (for at least the 6th time). I AM 100% FOR SEATTLE GETTING A TEAM Furthermore, I am 100% for the Sounders playing in Seahawks Stadium TEMPORARILY. When I say temporarily, I mean no more than six seasons. I think that's pretty fair seeing that's about the amount of time it took for LA to get theirs. I BET you that your Sounders front office already knows this and is making preliminary plans to build a permanent SSS for them in the future, which is the right path to follow. NFL stadiums and MLS just don't mix. My opinion. By the way, the notion that I'm for MLS expanding "once every 15 years" is ludicrous. I never said that, and my wanting all SSS'es doesn't assume that either.
Actually RonS is a nicer guy than I am!! Anyway, the cross section of people that post here vs. the overall fan base (or even those that inhabit the supporters sections) is too narrow to paint a picture like that. And even if you pick the posters here, it varies from thread to thread and who's flaming who at any given time..
I posted the idea of Dallas playing a game as the home team at SeaHawk stadium as part of a double-header with a Sounders-Portland or Vancouver game. Sounders vs. Timbers (4:30 pm) Dallas vs. MLS team X (7:00 pm) If you would like to comment, click on the following link. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80987 basically it stated: I just got this idea and would like the input of everyone. How about having a MLS regular season game at Seahawk stadium as a double header with a Sounders game? Before mid-August or so, Seahawk stadium is football lines free. Since Dallas fans are woeful of being in Dragon stadium, why not have 1 game in a non-MLS city reducing the "countdown" from 15 to 14. (there was actually a post in the Dallas board suggesting that Dallas should be playing all their games on the road). This double header would be on Saturday or a Sunday at 4:30 pm and 7 pm during June, July or early August. During last summer (90 days) there were only 2-3 rainy days, so the weather would be great and temperature would be much cooler than Dallas too. 4:30 PM : Seattle Sounders vs. Portland Timbers (or Vancouver so that some people could come down or go up to watch the game like they always do but this time in bigger number). 7:00 PM: Dallas Burn vs. MLS team X (I prefer LA), SJ, or Chicago would work also. Since Seattle has seen LA (US OPEN CUP) SJ (US OPEN CUP AND exhibitions) it might be best to have a new team like Chicago or Metrostars, or Rapids. Benefits: testing out the market, increase in attendance, double header= more soccer for NW fans, 1 less game for Dallas at Dragon Stadium. Dallas would share the revenues from this double-header with the Sounders. It is a win-win situation. (p.s. The sounders vs. LA Galaxy in the US Open cup was the largest attended US OPEN Cup game__I would expect this double header to pull in at least 16,000). Disadvantages: extra travel cost for Dallas. And possible resentment from Dallas fan having taking away a game at Dragon Stadium. (maybe). If someone at MLS office happen to check its own message board, hopingly they will test out this possibility or at least give it some thoughts. MLS fans, please comment Sounders/Timbers/Whitecaps fans please comment Dallas fans, please comment. And vote. anyway, back to the regular discussion.