I never listen to money. I much prefer that it sits in the wallet and keeps its mouth shut. But if you think back, to when Salt Lake was having difficulties working out the final stadium arrangements, the St Louis owner was willing to take RSL right away. That doesn't seem to jibe with your source. In any event, the St. Louis folks could get their stadium approval as early as Monday and Philadelphia doesn't seem too far behind. If MLS keeps at its present expansion pace, that means one team in 2009 and one in 2010. Should get interesting in the next couple of months.
Amend that to read: No one who isn't on BigSoccer and isn't from Seattle. Quite frankly, I don't think the league or the ownership groups or anyone involved give two craps what you or I think. They are the ones with the money, and they are going to go with their opinion.
Arguing with these people is a waste of time. If the ownership group, league and SEATTLE are ok with it............ P HUCK* everybody else.
You're right. The crowds that watched ManU play Celtic and DC United play Real Madrid at Qwest looked very unattractive. Nobody found those atmospheres appealing at all. Utter crap. If you want to make a case that small attendances look like garbage in big stadiums, your point is a bit more valid. But even at that, if they filled the lower bowl with 20-25,000 people (a fantasy world, I admit), there'd be little problem with the atmosphere at Qwest, it retains noise very well. Whether it can be economically feasable or if MLS would accept it even as a medium-term solution are different questions, and I don't pretend to be qualified to answer them.
Reality: The other Seattle MLS bids are fading...and the rising bidders have one mitt on Qwest, while the other waves a $30 Million check in front of Garber's schnozzola. (New signature copyright 2007. Note, I am not against a Seattle SSS.)
Prove it. How many MLS teams in NFL stadiums are in the black? I deal with commercial finance everyday and to make a long story short it's better to own then rent especially if you generate additional revenue from your asset to help service debt not to mention the tax benefits of a depreciating asset. Or you can rent. Seriously I need tenets in my Shoreline 4plex. You would make the perfect candidate to help pay my mortgage down.
Rumours and speculation. The more you name drop the more convinced I am that you don't know anymore than anyone else. All you can do is link to the same old articles everyone else has access to via the net. I'm willing to make anyone on BS an avatar, financial, sig line or any other type bet that MLS won't announce Seattle as an expansion team without SSS plans and mockups at the presentation.
But which MLS teams actually own their own stadiums? So far as I can tell, MLS teams (and pro sports teams) generally don't own, they manage other people's property at sweetheart lease deals. They're the super in someone else's apartment building.
I'm sure title is held by a shell LLC that would comprise the ownership's group and SUM. Charge yourself rent and then write it off as a business expense.
Mock-ups are meaningless and you should know that - they're for public consumption only. The Sonics sure had some nice mock-ups for their Renton arena and what became of that? Oops, they revealed it was all BS and they were pretty much trying to move to OKC from the beginning.
A pity you didn't answer me. I think Columbus are the only ones who actually own their stadium. All of the others are municipal stadiums where the manager is the MLS team (or its LLC). The Home Depot Center is owned by CSUDH. Pizza Hut Park is owned by the City of Frisco. Toyota Park is owned by the Village of Bridgeview. Dick's Sporting Goods - Commerce City! Chivas rents from AEG which pays money back to CSUDH. Oh and Columbus is the only non-profitable one of the above (maybe Chivas isn't) for the same reason the Revs aren't profitable - their attendance is crap. If the Revs had 14,000 a game again, they'd be fine and notice that they play in a huge ass NFL stadium out in the boonies. And hey, I'll attack sounderfan for the stuff he says about "the Seattle market" but if you weren't off in haughty disdain for the current Seattle pro soccer scene you'd know that his informants on the business side are pretty good. He knows the current front office (which contains people involved in the Roth bid) so if the information is wrong then they have bad info, too.
I just *tried* to explain that to jaypro in a PM. I am just saying what I am hearing...but of course I can't say WHO I am hearing it from. However, I don't post just 'anything' that is told to me. After a number of emails or messages from different people point to the same thing, I usually find a way to mention it in my 'own words' without pointing to sources, if it seems credible. Also, Adrian Hanauer is fairly chatty with Seattle fans on his own: http://goalseattle1.proboards101.com/index.cgi?board=mls&action=display&thread=1188408858 Sure, we could have a 'big' Seattle MLS Stadium announcement tomorrow. But it would be a surprise to more than just me if that happened.
Am I wrong to conclude public money was used in some form for the above stated projects and the money the various municipalities will be raised by bonds and sales tax increases. Now riddle me this. What entity retains rights to the following: 1. Luxury box revenue 2. Stadium naming rights 3. Parking revenue 4. Concession revenue 5. Concert/event revenue
Why would Hanauer want Qwest as a venue if he hadn't already negotiated to share some of these revenue sources with Qwest? Qwest is run by First and Goal, an arm of both the Seahawks and the State of Washington public stadium authority. www.stadium.org Their job is not to 'protect' the Seahawks per se, or pimp the NFL, but to run a stadium that has 350 or more empty dates *other* than NFL games. Qwest is not owned by the Seahawks. Sharing revenue is not only possible, but entirely likely based on previous comments from Hanauer about the venue.
Exactly how many clubs have 'folded' out of MLS? Miami and Tampa, right? Clubs playing in large venues is not preferred , but certainly has not been a 'death sentence' by any means in DC, Columbus, NY, KC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, New England, Salt Lake. Only Tampa Bay Muntiny didn't find a way to make it work*. Others found ways to move on to smaller venues. *=or, was it that the league pulled the plug? Both? This league has been hatched out of such stadia, and it just could be that same kind of hatching isn't quite done yet. Today's Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soccer/2003869053_kelley05.html Steve Kelley seemed happy with the 'atmosphere.'
Well it's good that the Seattle fans can have their dreams of joining the big boys. Even if it is a pipe dream. As others have said, i'm not against a Seattle franchise, but if they are going to join the league without a SSS in place or atleast plans for a SSS, then forget it. The league doesn't need Seattle. There are other cities who seem more eager to build SSS's and join those franchises who realized that playing soccer in football stadiums for any amount of time was a no-win situation.
I can't believe MLS would go for this after all the progress they've made. That would be a step back not forward. This is 2007 not 1997. They don't need cities like they used to, they should only make the deal if it fits into their long term strategy, any concession would be a mistake.
Yes, the NASL died a long time ago, but, the current Seattle Sounder team has been around since 1994, obviously longer than any MLS side. The name "Sounders" has been on a professional soccer team in Seattle 24 of the last 34 years. I don't believe any other professional team in the US can make that claim. Sure, let's throw away the history and tradition for some manufactured euro-poser name. The greatest soccer rivalries this country has ever seen existed along a stretch of I-5 in the Northwest and into Canada. It is interesting that the names of the teams still live on.
At the moment it'd be great if the Seattle MLS entry would play in the current stadium so all the outsiders and quasi-Europoseurs (hey, Jaypro) here will start slitting their wrists about it being a "huge step backward." Hey, useless Dynamo fan, when you guys got your ill-gotten team was there anything aside from the vaguest talk of a stadium of your own? No? Was the big deal mostly related to the cheaper rent? Really? You don't say?
How's that? Your team plays in a ********in college stadium. I don't see anyone building an SSS in Houston.
For now, all they have been doing is working on getting a SSS. There has been talk of building right next to the astros stadium. They expect to announce something shortly.
Sure, and I'll tell you how: The Seattle MLS team starts getting a cut of the revenues from Seahawks games and other events at Qwest Field. [Insert laugh track here]