That's a big "if." Only one team has been consistently able to average attendances of that size over the years and they happen to play in a SSS in the nation's #2 market. Maybe TFC can do that too, but they play in a SSS in Canada's #1 market.
Have no sound proof and largely resort to name calling? Then complain that the thread should of been closed and try to ignore the fact that Seattle without a SSS is largely a long shot at best. No. It would still be played in a mostly empty stadium. And to the comment about Dallas being merely a sidenote to MLS history.. atleast we're a sidenote in the USA's top flight soccer league. We're still in the game with the possibility of winning a MLS championship. Seattle? Not so much.
Considering the Sounders draw less than 5k right now I would say 20k is a stretch. The Chelsea Vs. Celtic match a few years ago drew about 25k and the place was a morgue so even if a new franchise was able to lead MLS in attendance at 20+k the atmosphere still would be dreadful IMO. Keep in mind the Sounders at present make little to no impact upon the sports landscape in the Seattle market.
Hard to make an impact with little to no marketing and advertising. I also don't think 20k per game is a stretch. SeattleMLS will definitely advertise and market a LOT more than the Sounders currently do. If they use QWest: fine. If they start at QWest and build an SSS: fine. If they plan on an SSS to be built first: fine (although it will undoubtedly be longer for an MLS side to be in Seattle with this route).
How much does the lower bowl seat? The problems we have watching games in new york and kansas city, is that the fans dont' even wrap around the field. If you can get it filled on a regular basis, then I would have no opposition to them being at qwest assuming all the details are worked out.
Undoubtedly. Qwest is fine if the plan is to move out in under 5 years and yes I would love a downtown location. With the Sonics leaving Key maybe the city could be convinced to let an MLS club convert Memorial Stadium into a SSS in conjunction with the other improvements going on in the South Lake Union/ Queen Anne area. But Qwest IMO longterm is unacceptable due to the many reasons already stated on this thread.
He was correct on the first part though. You've become the Ann Coulter of the Pro NFL stadium movement.
Looking back over the posts....... I refer to you as a "Timber Tool" after you brought up that you would rather support Portland. So that becomes "largely"? The only problem I have with you is that you can't let go of the "longterm" issue which even Hanauer has backed away from. SO if the "Timber tool" comment offended you......... I certainly apologize. Thought you had thicker "bark" than that.
Look I'm actually enjoying this thread and by and large I'm just giving you and SounderFan a hard time. Although I strongly disagree with you and others about Qwest long term I can see you both are very passionate about the Sounders and I do admire that in both of you. Your Timber Tool remark made me lol and I almost pos repped you for it. If Qwest is a short to mid term option then I'll fully support MLS putting a franchise in Seattle.
My point is that 25,000 tells us almost nothing about what the actual support would be. Sure, people have shown up for soccer 'events' in Seattle, but nobody in MLS is drawing 25,000 a game, and while past NASL and USL attendance is a rather poor indicator of what MLS attendance might be, neither of those numbers give any indication it would happen - for both, attendance has been solid, but far from spectacular. I'm not bothered by the asthetics of Qwest. It can work reasonably well, it does hold sound well, and the lower bowl is very well-defined, so that a crowd of 18-20,000 will look fine. And what I read from those claiming inside info about the financial side is plausible from what I know about First and Goal. I do get a bit irked with people who haven't spent time in the stadium and know little about the local situation flatly rejecting those things. But ... ... in the long-term, a SSS is still needed. It is needed for the revenue, because I doubt even the best sweetheart deal from First and Goal is very unlikely to match what can be done by having full control, and second, because the soccer team needs to be the primary occupier of the facility and not get jerked around on playoff dates or a re-working of the MLS season because of the Seahawks. All that the viability of Qwest does is allows a Seattle bid to not as far along on the SSS process, because five years in Qwest would probably work out okay. But it shoudn't be viewed as the permanent plan.
I think it is about 25,000. I know for certain from working events there that if you fill the sidelines of the lower bowl, it takes you to right around 20,000. There's not many seats in the north end zone (unless you use that triangle that goes up to the scoreboard), and the seats in the south end zone only go up to about halfway as high as the sideline seats, which I'd estimate leaves about 3,500-4,000 there. JayPro mentions the Celtic-Chelsea match - yes, atmopshere was bad, but the upper deck was open, so the crowd was much more spread out.
Actually I attributed both quotes to the correct person. Get it straight yourself. If your talking about my last comment about Dallas then at no time did I try to attribute THAT comment to you.
I hear they're giving away purses at Macy's... Better act quick! Sorry, but this thread deserves that.
You act as though my 'bitching' is disproportionate to the drivel I'm responding to and I have to say you are wrong. Compared to others in this thread I have much fewer posts and they are always in response to the hooey i'm reading. Much of which issues from your fingers. Anyway this is getting personal so I'd rather stop and start responding to anything else that's said in the thread that addresses the topic. I give you last word if you wish...