The location of Qwest is really good. Accessible both by car and public transportation and near downtown. A grass field to play on, with no football markings, is necessary and if it happens, great. Banners to cover the upper deck, and help the acoustics for the crowd noise, excellent.....But I still would worry about the viability, economically, of a team not sharing significantly in the proceeds that would come from owning its own stadium. I hope the potential owners have thought through that, and know what they would be doing. in terms of passion for the game, there is plenty of it here in this part of the country.
My take. 1. Maybe not market rent but rent will be paid 2. Highly unlikely 3. Again highly unlikely but some split could be worked out. 4. No 5. No 6. No 7. They maybe able to use grass but it will be at the teams expense. 8. Highly unlikely 9. Based on previous comments by the commish I would say no.
One of the more enlightening parts of the Beckham move has been watching MLS games with people who haven't watched them in the past. Virtually every one of these people freely commented how much they disliked trying to watch with the football lines out there. I mean I've been watching MLS matches for years with those lines out there and I'm still not used to it. It's pretty much the definition of an eyesore and when you combine that with the fact that those surfaces tend to be artificial (and not tailored to soccer), it makes them something less than ideal for MLS. Now if there was some reason to think MLS could draw 30,000+ a game up there, well then you live with it while trying to come up with an acceptable compromise in terms of the field (make enough money and you could install a tray system); money is money. And I certainly am not going to change my personal opinion of publicly funded sports stadiums. But from MLS' point of view, any market of a reasonable size with an SSS certainly has to be as attractive as Seattle is without one.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12479720&postcount=24 The quote from Garber is about starting at Qwest. Only Adrian Hanauer has publicly mentioned Qwest as a possible longterm solution. However when Garber says "as we develop SSS plans..." he certainly leaves it open to some interpretation. I only argue Qwest long-term if all of the finances add up. If they do, why wouldn't Garber be OK with it?
I don't know that there's a link. He says 'all indicators', meaning that Hanauer has said repeatedly that his desire is to stay in Qwest as he thinks it will work. If that is a true statement from Hanauer, and it is true that the league is looking at Seattle as a serious candidate for an MLS franchise, then all indicators do point to the fact that the MLS is, in fact, open to Seattle using Qwest Field indefinitely.
This whole line of reasoning is brain dead. This is like saying "The league has been stupid in the past, so they should save some of that stupidity for us." Yes, MLS made some dumb moves. But hopefully they're smart enough to learn from their mistakes.
First off the numbers won't add up. I don't see how Qwest could be a money making operation when you consider the missing revenue streams, paying rent and the inability to receive revenue for concerts and other events) second the game presentation (playing surface, football lines, and 45k- 50k empty seats) would be poor think NE and NY.
Yes. We have some more 'behind the scenes' info that points to Qwest for 2009 and beyond as being very close to happening. Of course that could change, but you'd think we'd be hearing MUCH more about SSS up here if Roth and Hanauer thought it was the only way in. They've got $30 million saying otherwise right now, but both seem open to SSS eventually. Hanauer is spinning Qwest likely because he has run a team for 5 years there, has made good connections, and is also a real stickler for keeping a team in the actual CITY of Seattle. He's had several chances to move the Sounders around the Sound, but has remained faithful to Downtown and to Qwest. Meanwhile he's gone about the job of negotiating an MLS lease with Qwest that makes the stadium a 'partner' in the club (he commented on this in 2004 in a Soccer365.com story. Link: http://www.soccer365.com/_365_Interviews/page_123_73940.shtml) I think the chances of Paul Allen being an investor in the team are slim to none. Where Paul Allen and the Seahawks will be an investor in the team is that they will be a partner of ours in the stadium. They are willing to basically create a scenario where we can have some success, whether that’s lower rent or sharing concessions and parking. I think there is no cash that they’re going to want to put in, but they want to see it here. They’d love to have the stadium filled for more dates and they’re willing to do it by not making a lot of money, which is a big commitment. So you can see that people are working on making Qwest work, especially financially. It is possible that it can work both financially and aesthetically, though that's been a tough sell on these boards to be sure.
That's why this topic is so heated because of the flat out refusal of some to look at the facts and the known truths. (Also the name dropping of the current Sounders owner in every other post is slightly irritating considering the guy is running a money losing operation.)
But what if Philadelphia and St. Louis both have firm SSS plans that would be ready to play by 2009? Would MLS pass on one of those more aesthetically and financially favorable arrangements - both of which, by the way, are time-sensitive, now-or-never proposals - in favor of a team at Qwest Field, which isn't going anywhere? The league brass is hard to read, but I can't imagine they'd do that.
Just as the idea that 'facts and known truths' apply to every and all situations is an annoying belief. Sure Seattle is unique, as are all markets. I am not saying it will work (Qwest), but it sure could. Short term FOR SURE. After that it would be up to the club, the stadium operator and the support of fans to see if it is indeed a longterm solution. Saying it absolutely can or can't work is wrong either way. Please state what you really mean: you don't WANT it to work, because you'd rather have only SSS in the league.
Who knows what the league would do then. Anyone's guess. Perhaps it would push Roth / Hanauer more towards an SSS plan fast-track.
Huh. And here I would lump you into that very same group of people who won't look at the facts. I see your side of the argument, I just happen disagree. I'm 100% certain that a team could be revenue positive in a venue they didn't own if EVERYTHING was structured correctly. You, on the other hand, are convinced that an RCS is the only possible way it would work.
Yeah, of course, wouldn't everybody prefer a stadium that the local MLS team manages? I think even the Qwest-heads like yourself will admit that--given the choice between a SSS and a NFL stadium, you'll take the SSS. We hope you get a team and your own stadium. But when you say things like: ...it only shows how removed from the reality of MLS expansion you really are. MLS has an expansion team for 2008. There's two strong candidates for 2009 already working out stadium deals. MLS doesn't have to make a decision on 2009 before late 2008. Like I said before, if the numbers work you'll get a team. If they don't, you'll still be sitting in Qwest watching USL-1 with 4,000 other people.
I would consider myself a fairly typical fan of MLS and I definately wouldn't want a Seattle team that might not have plans to build a SSS. Those days are slowly fading away and we really don't need to go down that path again. I certainly don't think the league should in any way feel they MUST have a team in Seattle. I also think that the interest in MLS is on the way up and at this point MLS should demand a little bit more than just the 30 million, i.e. plans for a SSS that have been approved by local government and voters. Some will say that isn't reasonable, but neither is allowing another team to enter the league that will have to play in an oversized and largely empty stadium with little to no revenue sharing. Sorry Seattle but unless you can offer a better solution for stadia then you should stay in the USL. That is my opinion, which means very little.
You're right. Both sides are arguing from extremes at times. It's understandable that Seattle supporters want a team badly and that's fair. It's also fair for fans from other cities to point out the weaknesses in the Qwest plan. The bottom line is of course the bottom line. If, some how, the new Seattle MLS owners are able to negotiate a deal with the current Qwest managers and the city to make Qwest a financially viable site for MLS, than go for it. However, history would prove this task impossible as there hasn't been a 'profitable' club yet to operate out of a NFL stadium rental plan. Even further, in terms of aesthetics, the same argument is present. Qwest is a beautiful stadium with an ideal location, however history again can illustrate that MLS size crowds in NFL stadiums are much less preferable to SSS's, even when not at full capacity. Now, this is a little bit more subjective of an observation, but I'd be willing to bet it would receive a majority opinion. I sincerely hope Seattle is able to acquire an MLS franchise. If that means playing at Qwest for a couple years, then so be it. If it means playing at Qwest for 5 or 6 years and SOMEHOW the new MLS franchise can find a way to make money, well than I guess some people, including myself, might just have to bite the bullet (it's not like I'm actually going to be there in all honesty), but most of the nay-sayers around here are just saying, look at the facts available and the examples that we have in the short 12 year history of this fantastic league. There is not much good to say about an MLS team playing in an NFL stadium, no matter how it's dressed up.
Change the name to what, some unoriginal Euro-poser name, or some abominable MLS swill like Fortitude? So what if the NASL is gone? Great names live on. Sounders is a hell of a lot better, and a whole hell of a lot more original, than Seattle FC, Atletico Seattle, Bayern Seattle, et al. This is an AMERICAN league, not the EPL. Sounders Forever!!!!
Right now only Seattle has anyone willing to pay the $30 Million franchise fee. All other bidders are waiting to see if SSS deals in various locales pan out. That's the info I have been given. I am posting as if it is accurate. Groups planning stadiums for 2009 opening/entry need EARLIER approval, so your calendar is out of whack big time. Both Philly and STL would need to know they are in for sure this fall. Otherwise, why start building a stadium that will take 12-18 months, or more? Just as I would expect Seattle MLS, if it were entering with a SSS, would need approval this Fall sometime for 2009, or even 2010. It is hard to tell if you'll get a quick raising like BMO, or have issues like Red Bull Park. When the league is counting on you to play, that's a big issue to face. It makes a lot of sense for MLS to pick Seattle, take the $30 Million, and then work on an SSS later here. Meanwhile, they'll hope that one of Philly / STL pans out with all the variables in play in those markets. Seattle's variables have been drastically reduced with the arrival of Joe Roth's millions and...Qwest Field's desire to host soccer. Yes, desire. They WANT MLS in the stadium. That is a big hurdle already jumped.
The last four expansion teams--Salt Lake, Chivas, Toronto, and San Jose---have all been awarded in the middle of the previous season. Chivas doesn't really count, because they're sharing an already-built SSS, but the other teams were all able to organize themselves and begin play in less than a year's time. I don't see any reason why your timing is correct and mine is wrong. Both Philadelphia and St. Louis are capable of finding stadiums to use on a temporary basis until their own places get finished. I'm hoping that Seattle does the same thing. I hear that there's some stadium called Qwest that sits empty a lot in the summer and might be adequate for a couple of years.
The whole NFL stadium, football markings, fieldturf thing comes off as totally bush league to any new person I've brought to an MLS game at Giants stadium or Gillette and has been a major reason they have told me why they aren't interested in coming back to another game. I can't believe the league would allow this for a new team as a long term solution especially with the position MLS is in now where they have so much interest for expansion spots. Hannauer should speak to soccer fans in NY and NE and see what they think of the experience of playing in NFL stadiums, I think he would change his outlook then.
Here is the deal, no one else wants to see soccer at Qwest. Atleast no one who isn't from Seattle. Soccer crowds in Football stadiums doesn't look attactive and it doesn't matter if they bring in grass with proper lines or not.
Yeah, Toronto came together really fast. That's an exception though, not to be counted on in the States. The issue with Philly / STL is that the ownership groups there do not want to operate their clubs if/until SSS are built. At least that is what I surmise by the source who said only Seattle is ready with the $30 Mil. Of course that could change in the near future for both cities if votes and governmental support fall in place. Maybe if it does then the Philly group wouldn't mind playing at the Linc. etc. for a year. Maybe STL would do a season in the Dome. Right now the money isn't talking that direction, though.
Some guided imagery for you. Garber is in his office with the head of the expansion committee and the head of MLS marketing. He gives them all identical maps of the USA, and a paper hole-punch. To the head of marketing he says "Punch a hole by the cities that would add to our ESPN TV and overall market value through demographics and regional appeal." To the head of the expansion committee he says "Punch a hole by every city that has an available, acceptible venue and an owner with the franchise fee ready to go." "I," says Garber, "will use my map to punch a hole on the cities that would benefit MLS from a sporting, travel, tradition and competitive nature. You know, places we'd like to visit, cities that traditionally have shown a love and support for the game. Cities that balance the league geographically." They all do this, and it takes a few minutes. When they are done, they all go over to one of those big windows in the shiny, impressive MLS headquarters. They line all the maps up, and hold them in the light. Up in the far left corner of the map, a single bright thread of light shines through. "Seattle," chortles Garber. "But those damn football lines...anyone up for best two out of three?"