Soccer 365 interview with Sounders owner Adrian Hanauer, from 2004: http://www.soccer365.com/_365_Interviews/page_123_73940.shtml And this mere weeks before SLC was announced: http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/166341
If SSS prove financially viable for Frisco, Commerce City, Bridgeview, Harrison, and SLC/Murray then it shouldn't be as hard to get other cities to invest. If MLS insists on 8 playoff teams, they need to get to 16 teams sooner rather than later. I think the talent pool will be out there (look how much deeper the last draft was than the early ones). What cities will commit to SSS up front. Maybe San Antonio (mayor on the way out) and not many others. At some point MLS has to be conscous that it is in the right long-term markets and eventually has the tv markets to score a lucrative contract (I'm talking 10-20 years from now at least). MLS really wants in Seattle. If the right ownership and a suitable facility are found, I'll settle. I just wish they'd invent a way to quickly remove football lines! I want the Revs out of Gillette as much as any non-Revs fan but I'll take Gillete for now over no Boston team in the league. I don't think these SSS will come right away with too many expansion markets unless they really want to be "major league" and those are markets MLS ought to be wary of. SLC is great, others I won't slam by name aren't. I think the investor comes first. With a good investor and good market the SSS will come. OK just as long as the lease is decent.
Here Hanauer also mentions the stadium (Qwest Field): http://www.matchnight.com/?Page=ARTICLE&articleid=363
Fixed your post to reflect reality. But then, that ownership group is building the stadium in Frisco, so maybe they're not that incompetent at all. And it is somewhat ironic that the Burn had a much, much, MUCH better lease at Dragon Stadium than they ever did at the Cotton Bowl -- a low rent, 100% of concessions and parking revenues, and a great deal of flexibility over issues of stadium administration. I've got the stadium agreement on my desk at home (it's a public record) and it's very good if you've got insomnia. But explain to me this -- Who would've spent the money to build the Burn a stadium? Until the 2002 season, the Burn had no owner. They were a league-run team. In other words, they had no money, save for what the MLS owners gave it to run themselves. Where would the money come from? HSG wasn't the owner of the Burn until 2002. The Burn had no owner before then. Now maybe you could make the argument that maybe the league shouldn't have had league-run teams when they started, which is something that I've heard advanced to me by someone very high up in the league hierarchy. But they did, and when you have a team that is the ward of the league, you don't generally find too many league owners willing to spend the coin necessary to build them a stadium. Find an owner first, then get a stadium built. But since you're handing down edicts about what the league should've done, why did it take the Rapids eight years to get a stadium plan? Why did it take the Galaxy five? And so on. If "having a stadium plan" was a prerequisite for having a team in Major League Soccer, MLS would've started with a grand total of one team, in Columbus. And even Columbus got their team, not because of their stadium plan, but because they got 11,000 season ticket deposits. You're apparently more interested in arguing with what you think I wrote, than actually reading what I'm writing. Maybe that's why you're confused.
My guess is Hanauer is talking about the "other" investors. But I don't think any article I read with quotes has made it clear what was slowing the process.
I have no problem with Seattle playing at Qwest. It's not ideal, but it's a nice new stadium with great sight lines. It's nice that MLS pretty much changes the rules on us after we voted on the staduim.