Well we now have LA and Columbus in their own SSSs and we have KC and NE in friendly stadium deals. The Burn have finalized their stadium plans and that means that half the league will be in good standing pretty soon. If the league adds two teams in 05 with stadiums of their own we will see 7 of the 12 teams in solid positions stadiumwise. This is pretty significant for MLS and a good sign. That leaves us with San Jose, Metro, DC, Chicago, and Denver without a true home. MLS breaking even by 05? If Frisco Stadium is there on time it looks like a good possibility. It really does seem that MLS is positioning itself to succeed for the long haul and its a great time to be a fan in LA and Dallas.
http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/dal0402frisco.html The proposed stadium looks great. The only thing that would make it even better would be a roof like the Galaxy's stadium. With or without roof, this stadium is another significant milestone in MLS history. Congratulations, Dallas & MLS fans!
SSS in Columbus, Carson, and soon Frisco. Good deals in Foxboro and Kansas City. Also, everything I've read says the Rapids have a good deal in their new home and the Fire will have a good deal come this fall when Soldier Field re-opens. That's seven out of 10. Add 2 new clubs with their own stadiums, that will be nine of twelve. Plus, it is sounding better and better every day that shovels will scoop up Harrison dirt in 2004. If the Metros can get their own home in 2005 (as the MetroPres is hoping) this league will be in very good shape. Then we'd just have to worry about DC and SJ. If Harrison does become a go, all those 2006 expiration dates some fear will mean nothing. Hell, by 2006 MLS could be breaking even. A great time to be a fan.
If this baseball to DC thing would just get worked we would know where United stands. Apparently stadium plans are ready we just need to know what is going on with baseball.
I believe that the Burn are going to be sharing with High School football and b/c of that fact I don't think they'll go for the roof. Still good though.
I'm not convinced that Spartan Stadium is a bad long term location for the Earthquakes. It's a perfect size, intimate and the location, while not central to most of the Bay Area, isn't bad. The negatives people point out are: 1) the field is too narrow - it's actually FIFA regulation now, though barely, since they widened it about 4 years ago. 2) the Quakes attendance is bad. It used to be among the best in MLS, but gradually went downhill due to the multiple owhership/management changes, name change, total lack of marketing and also the team was sooooo bad for sooooo long. Regardless, the stadium had little to do with it. 3) contract with San Jose State, who owns the stadium, is supposedly bad. This may be true but one would think the Quakes could negotiate a decent deal with them given that they are the highest drawing tenant there by far for 7 years now.
      Actually, the name change had nothing to do with the attendance either.       In any case, yes Spartan Stadium is a bad long term location for the Earthquakes! -G
From what I read of the MLS press release about the Burn stadium, an adjacent stadium would be built next to the main 20,000 one for high school football.
Denver's deal with Invesco Field is pretty good. Not too expensive plus they have been getting the added benefit of casual attendees who want to go to the new stadium but can't or won't pay for a Bronco's ticket.
well, for football below the varsity level... and for all levels of highschool soccer... they aren't about to do a 600 seat highschool football stadium... that doesn't float in illinois
just looked at the slideshow, featuring images of the Frisco stadium proposal , one thing I don't get ( as is with the Galaxy Stadium) why do they leave one end open, unfinished, any specific reason ?
The Fire had their luncheon today, and apparently there is going to be an announcement of a proposal to build a soccer specific stadium in "some community in the area"--whatever that means. Could be very good news for Chicago fans? Check out this thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=42258
My guess is that is allows for future expansion of the stadium. If the teams don't sell them out it doesn't leave a ton of empty seats. If they do great add another five thousand.
There was a link on here last fall that stated that San Jose only lost like 500,000 last year. apparently they have a very good lease at Spartan. That same link stated that the 2 major money killers are DC and Metros. It said United lost 3 million and Metros 6 million last year. After the good news about the Burn, if they can ever get United and Metros in new stadiums this league could probably turn a profit. I'm sure those 2 are the top priorities of the league.
The finest fillet mignon served with with turd sauce tastes like crap. A soccer specific stadium with football lines on it isn't soccer specific. Hopefully they'll find a way to use washable paint. On the plus side, high school football players aren't massive enough to do too much damage to the field.
"If I told them once, I told them a thousand times. Put 'Spinal Tap' first and 'Puppet Show' after it." -Jeanine
Why? Because the drainage isn't good? It rarely rains in SJ in soccer season anyway. Because the touch lines are too close to the seats? This is also meaningless (maybe even good, but most likely meaningless). As for having a bad stadium deal, there are conflicting reports on this. Even if its true it seems they could cut a better dealt there at some point as they are the main tenant there.
      It rains more often than "rarely" in San Jose at the very beginning and the very end of the MLS seasons. Not to mention that the San Jose State gridiron football team practically tramples the field near the end of summer/beginning of fall, further leaving the field a mess for the Quakes (through a quirk in NCAA scheduling, the Earthquakes avoided that fate last season... but that was no more than luck).       Yup... but even worse, the touch lines are too close to the concrete walls. If a player slides even a wee but too much towards out of bounds, he can pretty much kiss his legs goodbye - as opposed to other MLS stadiums with similarly-sized fields, where all he'd have to worry about is sliding into a collapsable adboard (and even then, there'd be a greater distance between the touch lines and adboards in other stadiums than the touch lines and concrete walls of Spartan).       Coulda, woulda, shoulda... it hasn't happened yet, and it's very unlikely that it'll happen anytime in the future. As a matter of fact, the once-again changing front-office had missed the deadline for first-shot stadium-exclusivity a little while back with Spartan Shops, and that's how the CyberRays were able to snag two very attractive home dates that the Earthquakes would have loved to have.       Cut a better deal, indeed. -G
Spartan is fine to get used to it (or perhaps I should say stay used to it) as they are not going anywhere.
Flushing Queens needs a stadium bad. So much space in Flushing Meadow Park and it could turn into a soccer hot bed over night.
      While it's certainly true that the Earthquakes aren't leaving San Jose anytime soon (which warrants a ), the fact that they're stuck at Spartan Stadium definitely warrants a . -G