I can see most of the main stadium being ready by the start of the season, but the complete project won't be done until far into 2005. Hopefully, the priorities are properly in place (lacking redundance, of course).
Obviously great news. I am sure they listened to the fans who were certainly united in the fact that they would not be reupping for next year in anything close to this years numbers. Therefore the actual attendence would closely approximate the cash flow unlike this year when they suckered us. They ran the numbers and figured they would lose more money by staying and then scampered back. The HSG wagon train was ambushed by little indians at the pass. This moronic death march ended in management being impaled by the cash reality arrows shot by the fans. Well done.
The kids on the Northside are NOT a problem. They are with a family where there is as many adults as kids and are under more control. Also, they come to several games and are more into the game. The kids on the Southside are often in groups where there is more kids than adults. I'm very tolerant of kids at soccer games. If not for the kids there would be no Burn. If not for the kids there would be no Sidekicks. If not for the kids there would not have been a Dallas Tornado. And it's more than just Butts in seats, it's also SPONSORSHIP DOLLARS. What else is there to say.
You should be happy because without those kids and moms you would not have a first division game to be at. It's interesting that you don't take an adult solution approach about your complaints about the KIDS. Quit making excuses and sit with the Inferno. The mums and kids wont be an issue there. Or, find someplace to sit where it's not an issue.
MLS Cup & All Star Game? Has Frisco Stadium been promised the MLS All-Star Game and MLS Cup for the 2005 season yet? Thank you.
The thought of a mid-afternoon All-Star game in August in Dallas.... Let's just say they should get the final.
They could play it at night of course. I hope they don't get both however in a single year. It is would be better to have one one year and the other the next. Keeps interest going and doesn't dilute with two many big events at once. Also throw in World Cup Qualifiers (against any island nations and Canada), friendlies and the US Open Cup Final. It would also be a good sight for NCAA finals although they just had them hear recently and the interest was not real high (is it high anywhere?).
I know I am slow to this, but I was just reading the John Wagner interview on 3rd degree. IMO, there is no way in hell that Frisco will have real grass. None. Unless we convince ourselves now that it will be artificial, I think we will be disappointed in 2005.
We've got to hope that it's an old article. When the team decided to move back to the Cotton Bowl, the reason given was that the fans demanded to play on grass. Surely they won't then do a 180 and build a turf stadium. You've got to hope that they learned something from the Southlake experience, or at least that Wagner has lost serious cred within the organization as far as soccer decisions go. If not, there is simply no hope for this franchise. A turf stadium would definitely be the last straw for this fan.
The Burn sound like a front office that has learned from its mistakes. The irony is that the Dragon Stadium experiment/disaster probably gives us a better chance at a permanent grass field in Frisco than if we would've remained in the Cotton Bowl for both interim years.
I could never, in good conscience, promote the Burn on artificial turf. The game was simply not meant to be played (especially at a high level) on anything else except grass. I hope the 'grass is greener' in Frisco, otherwise I'll be joining Jambon on this.
I think the fact that they will have to host many football games will sway the group towards turf. The cotton bowl has no such problems. If the Cotton Bowl hosted DISD football games every week it would have had turf long ago.
Maybe some things don't come through in a written transcription of the interview, but as the person that did that interview, I came away from that interview feeling more certain than I ever had that Frisco will have a grass field, simply by the way that Wagner talked about the two. Does he, as someone who's got to make the financials for this team and this stadium work, see the benefits of artificial turf? Sure, he does and so do most of us. Low maintenance costs and all that jazz. But he himself said that the state of the art of synthetic surfaces, while much better than 10 years ago, still has a long way to go, especially for soccer. Moreover, he also intimated that an artificial surface would be a major impediment in getting major international matches to Frisco. And they're counting on a regular slate of those matches to make the financial numbers work. And while I guess that they could put down temporary grass surfaces for those matches, that starts eating up whatever money you've saved by putting down an artificial surface in the first place. Is his "90 percent sure" statement an iron-clad guarantee? No. But it's as close to one as you're ever going to get from anyone in his position. And while I did that interview with him in early October, he told me the same thing in early June. I will say, however, that he has changed his mind a bit on this issue. In early June, he told me that before the season, he was 50-50 on the FieldTurf issue. The Southlake experience changed his mind on that very quickly. And I'm sure that the public and not-so-public denunciations of FieldTurf by players have only reinforced that. Between the time that I did that interview (early Oct.) and when I finally transcribed it (early Nov.), the move back to the Cotton Bowl was announced. Obviously, that move was made because season ticket holders and sponsors told the organization in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't put up with Dragon Stadium for even more year. That must've also reinforced that lesson in his mind even further. I don't know if the organization wants to flirt with disaster, even by having a plain green FieldTurf surface. So when he says that he wants to have grass in Frisco and that HSG wants to have grass in Frisco, I believe him. If I were to guess, "a grass field" is going to be one of the "must haves." Of course, if I'm wrong, all of you can feel free to call me a sucker. I don't think that'll happen, however.
Putting in turf would pretty much remove Frisco from any consideration for most big-time international matches. World Cup qualifiers couldn't be played there without a temporary grass surface being put in, and those are expensive, expensive enough to eat up most of the money that would be saved by putting in an artificial surface. And those big-time international matches are being counted on to make the numbers work.
The Cotton Bowl did have "turf" a long time ago. If memory serves me they changed to grass in the early 90's - obviously before WC 94. You know, honestly, I am with you on this too. I don't think I could support a soccer team that plays on artificial turf. I just don't think I could. I'm not sure exactly why, but like gotyourback says, the game was meant to be played on grass. Despite the fact that such a decision means that ownership does not truly have the best interests of the team at heart, turf takes away from my enjoyment of the game. It would be like an NHL team playing games on cement with roller skates. Or an NBA team playing on a rubber floor. Who would watch that? I have no doubt my enthusiasm for the team would wane. I agree that going with turf is far less likely now and I would bet money that we have grass. But I am concerned that turf is still even under consideration.
Did I miss something here? Did I miss something here? Why have a soccer specific stadium in the first place if you are going to use fake turf? Is it simply for the sake of having a more intimate atmosphere? If that is the case, I really feel for you guys down in Dallas. All these years waiting for this? Artificial turf, no matter how modernized it is, sucks for soccer. MLS should simply ban the use of Artificial turf for its new stadiums.
I would sure like to hear some official news on the stadium front. What is the holdup? If they keep quiet for another month then rumors will start flying that the whole thing is in jeopardy. Really, they should understand that when you give a date for groundbreaking and you miss it there should be an explanation not silence.
I'm worried too, but we've come this far and I think they're just telling that guy who's fighting for the land that unfortunetly he's not going to win so he should just fvck off and then they can make an official statement about groundbreaking. And as for the turf thing, if (and thats a huge IF) it were to ever happen, we'd all know you couldn't call it a SSS, it's odviously geared more towards pointy ball. They will lose lots of fans and it'll just be the laughing stock of the league. remember they read these boards lets make sure they know we won't come if they even think about putting out turf. (ok I lied I'd come but I'd be very pissed)
you better show up...at least to yell wagner must got. Yeah we better start hearing soemthing about the stadium soon or maybe we should take matters into our own hand form a mob and start a riot/protest/lynching service to kick start the ground breaking. HSG, you screwed us one year, ou are trying to correct a mistake, don't screw up again or you are more likely to lose faith and creditbility.
Guys. Calm down. It is coming. Good lord, HSG pull their pants down to show you their shame of their 2003 mistakes - can't you just hang loose until they get all the "i" dotted and "t" crossed? There are a lot of people involved in this deal.. city, county, school district, corportation and private individuals. Go have another turkey sandwhich.