What do you think of our temp homes?

im all for it in that case, but would they really do it just so a team can play there a few times and then go to their stadium by mineta?


But then again, we are talking about Lew Wolff here. The man's a negotiating genius. If something has the chance of happening, it can happen. That and the fact that adding a few seats wont kill the budget, but it will cancel any profit they make from ticket sales (at least to my knowledge). Maybe the quakes and the school could go halves?


Plus it saves me gas. Im in San Jose, but i wouldnt mind going all the way to Stanford if a decent crowd would go along with me. So im all for it. But this 6,000 seat stadium for a professional soccer team doesnt sound too appealing to me at this point in time.

 

Anyone who's had a season ticket since '96 has seen worse starts than a fully backed team like the 'Quakes are going to be in '08

 

It certainly would not be the first time that a MLS team played for a season or two in sub-standard facilities.

 

How much can 5-7000 seats really cost to build? I doubt it would cost $1-2million. Lew is in construction so I'm sure he could build temp seating for less than that....

 

Most likely the extra seating would be the kind of modular stands that normally get brought in for one-time events such as the San Jose Grand Prix or major golf tournaments. It's kind of late now to get the kind of approvals and environmental reports and everything that would be required to get permanent construction done before next April.

 

Rent the extra seats from the American Legion and St. Angela's church bingo parlor.

 

What do I think of our temp homes? Just as long as they don't come from
FEMA, I'm okay.

 

a lot of people are against a 7k seat stadium, but remember, Wolff's strategies involve having very small capacities. So if SJ averaged about 13k fans per game last season in existence, I don't see Lew wanting the Buck Shaw facility to be expanded much past 13,000.

 

Buck Shaw, if expanded to about 12k, would be a perfect location because it's so close to the proposed new stadium.

It would get the fans in the habit of going to that area for games, so the new stadium wouldn't be much of an adjustment. It would attract fans from the peninsula and the east bay who previously weren't inclined to hie down to Spartan all that often because of the poor access. (BTW, has it been said that the new location is almost perfect for that reason?)

Plus, soccer-related businesses (and by that I mean bars) could start to open up around there sooner rather than later.

Finally, with a stadium that small--I mean, "intimate"--it makes the TV question much easier to answer. That question, by the way, is as follows: Does airing home games on local TV help by promoting the product, or does it kneecap ticket sales? A smaller stadium equals more sellouts, which means that more games can be televised; that will help promote the Quakes.


The Oakland thing, I'm not so sure of. If you have a choice between sharing a stadium with a baseball team or one with a football team, that sucks; why share a stadium with both of those teams? One can only assume that we're hearing Oakland so much because Stanford is not available.

The Sacramento thing, I really don't get. What's the point? Can the team really expect to sell a lot of season tickets to people who live 2 hours away? Is this really a market that should get a lot of attention from the Quakes? Shouldn't they devote their efforts and limited resources towards cultivating a more local fan base?

 

I think Sac could also be to 1) get some data points as to what kind of support they might get there, and possibly to plant some seeds in case (heaven forbid) this becomes the eventual destination for the team 2) remind the city of San Jose that they don't necessarily have to locate the team in San Jose.

That said, they have said several times that their first priority is to have as many games as possible in the south bay. If they play in Sacramento it would be either one or two exhibition type of matches or as a last resort for some regular season MLS matches. I think their #1 choices are probably Buck Shaw for "smaller" games and Stanford for big games.

 

I don't think MLS works like the NFL where sellouts directly impact whether or not a game is televised.

Putting aside practical limitations, wouldn't Berkeley or San Francisco be better options for exhibition games since those people would be a lot more likely to go to home games in San Jose? Of course they want support anywhere and everywhere in Nor Cal, but they won't get as much benefit in the long term from building a fan base in Sacramento as opposed to somewhere in Bay Area.

I'm sure there are Sharks fans in Sacramento, but how often do you think they go to home games? A few times a year I'd assume. But Sharks fans in SF and the East Bay probably attend a lot more home games.

 

I meant instead of Sacramento, while keeping the Oakland games. Building a fan base in Sacramento when they could be building a base in other parts of the bay doesn't seem to make sense to me. But like its been pointed out, Lew Wolff has serious sports experience so I'll assume he knows what he's doing.

 

I think Lew thinks a team could work in Sac. whether it be the 'Quakes if San Jose can't get the job done or an expansion team.

(I personally prefer the expansion team idea, but I doubt MLS would go for it unless all the other places that want one fall through)

 

The NFL set it's own rules regarding the televising of local games. I think, as time has gone by, the league has started to rethink it's policy about the 48 hour sellout window. It's often pretty transparent that they don't really enforce it anyway. Sometimes, a company will buy the remaining tickets at a significant discount, probably hoping to give them away. The game is technically "sold out" but the reality is that there will be empty seats.

 

Other way around. I was stating that there's a school of thought that thinks that games on local TV will negatively impact ticket sales.

 

have driven to every home game (except the MetroStars goalfest) since '01.

 

Yeah I can easily see some company forcing a sellout in order to enable the broadcast if that company was going to be advertising on said broadcast. It must also drive the TV stations into fits not knowing whether or not they'd have to fill that dead air with syndicated shows until the last minute.

But then, I bet it drives them crazy having to cope with the variable length of football games. The biggest advantage of soccer in terms of TV is that it fits handily inside a 2-hour window.

 

I've heard that they almost always buy them out to ensure a broadcast. Somehow, despite the variable nature of the sports, Baseball and Football games usually end up being around 3 hours. I assume they add commercial breaks to force the length if it looks like its too short.

 

1. Sacramrento is about as far as some places in the Bay Area, like Santa Rosa. Sacramento actually has people, though

2. The new Comcast deal means that the sports markets are merging. It makes sense to cover the market, no?

 

I also come out from the central valley, and have only missed a handful of home games. I have run into quite a few acquaintances and students from Modesto at home games. Sac is a little far, but the Tracy/Modesto/Stockton area is a very real market for the Quakes to tap. We're all used to having to drive for our entertainment anyway. I know plenty of season ticket holders for American football and folks who regularly attend baseball games as well. At an SSV event I mentioned the commuter train that runs from the South Bay to Manteca to Anne Rodrigues and David Allioto. They also seemed very interested and were already knowledgeable of the area and the large Hispanic community.