What would you like in a new stadium?, v. 7.0

Discussion in 'San Jose Earthquakes' started by falvo, Apr 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OffMyLine

    OffMyLine Member

    Nov 30, 2007
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're confusing requirements and recommendations. Go back and re-read it. A recommendation is not a requirement. And it's only a FIFA "requirement" if you're planning on hosting a World Cup Final tournament game. That won't happen in Chester or in San Jose.

    I got a kick out of how that document lays out the players toilets
    BTW - Hows your Helipad coming along?
     
  2. Earthshaker

    Earthshaker BigSoccer Supporter

    Sep 12, 2005
    The hills above town
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It looks like some of the specs are requirements, others are just recommendations.
     
  3. Blackball

    Blackball Member

    May 23, 2007
    Silicon Valley
    FIFA requirements? Have you seen our field size :p ?
     
  4. chapka

    chapka Member+

    May 18, 2004
    Haverford, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I haven't been to Buck Shaw, but had a season ticket in Spartan while I lived on that coast. I assume FIFA had to give Spartan an exemption because if you'd gone 6 meters in from either side you'd meet in the middle.

    The document is called "Technical Recommendations and Requirements." FIFA recommends 8.5m sidelines and 10m endlines, but requires 6m and 7.5m as minimum dimensions.

    And the document is clear when they're talking about the separate, more stringent World Cup finals requirements. These requirements apply to every stadium under FIFA's purview, which includes national club leagues.

    Don't need one--just a "sufficiently large clear area" near the stadium where a helicopter could land. In other words, a parking lot.
     
  5. OffMyLine

    OffMyLine Member

    Nov 30, 2007
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The document doesn't say that those minimums are a requirement for non- WCF games.

    Not really. The document is really poorly written. To illustrate -
    So are 3 Urinals and 2 hair dryers really a recommendation or a requirement? For all stadiums or just World Cup sites? If you have only one hair dryer do you need an exemption from FIFA?

    The document is written by a bunch of European Bureaucrats and it reads like it.


    See we expect our parking lot to be full of cars around game time, which is when they'd want to use the Helipad. Maybe they won't need much parking at Chester. Of course, the Airport is right across the street from us. You could walk off your private jet to your stadium seat in about 5 minutes. Not that that's a good thing.
     
  6. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What's not good about being able to fly in and see a game?
     
  7. chapka

    chapka Member+

    May 18, 2004
    Haverford, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    FIFA says they're a requirement, period. MLS is a FIFA-sanctioned league. You are kidding yourself if you think your stadium will not be built to these specs. MLS (the majority owner of both of our teams) made the decision that they're going to be followed in Philly, and they're not going to make an exception for San Jose.

    Where the guidelines are World Cup specific, they clearly say so.

    What's unclear? It's a FIFA requirement, and the visiting team can expect this at every FIFA-sanctioned event, which includes league matches. In practical terms, if there are only two urinals or one hair dryer, the other team is unlikely to lodge a complaint, but if they did, and it was upheld, then FIFA would be able to sanction the host team. In practical terms, the club could be banned from any competition that required the use of the Stadium R&R in their governing documents--including, potentially, the CONCACAF Champions' League.

    Not disagreeing. But we're a FIFA league and we play by FIFA rules, no matter who writes them.

    Is it likely to be an issue if one stadium or another deviates slightly from the requirements? No, it isn't. Is MLS going to bend the rules for San Jose and incur a risk, no matter how slight, of FIFA sanction or other problems down the road? No, they're not. Any San Jose stadium will be built within the guidelines.
     
  8. OffMyLine

    OffMyLine Member

    Nov 30, 2007
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What's good about the private jet set having easy access to a Quakes game?

    I can't think of anything. If a Quake fan had a private jet they'd probably wouldn't take it to home games.
     
  9. OffMyLine

    OffMyLine Member

    Nov 30, 2007
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Your reading it wrong.

    Re-read Blatters comment as well as the Working Groups comment. If these were requirements for all soccer stadiums they would say so. These are recommendations for all stadiums, requirements for World Cup venues.

    The Working group says
    Those are the World Cup requirements.

    Do you have any another FIFA link that spells out these requirement? I've looked, can't find one. FIFA seems to be pretty reluctant to publish hard requirements for stadium design.

    As to what the MLS will or won't do, their priority will be to get and retain fans. Wolff will get what he wants, the question is what does he want.
     
  10. chapka

    chapka Member+

    May 18, 2004
    Haverford, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, actually, you're just wrong. Here is what the Working Group says:

    Read that first part again:

    The measurements which are provided in the main text of the book and in the accompanying diagrams are applicable to all new football stadiums.

    Then:

    The book also contains, in the FIFA World Cup™ Space Requirements, a new and comprehensive breakdown of the space required for hosting matches in the FIFA World Cup™. The relevant requirements for each area are provided at the end of each chapter

    In other words, the section at the end of the chapter labeled "FIFA World Cup space requirements" is the part that applies to World Cup matches.

    The actual text and diagrams of the chapters apply to all new football stadiums.

    If you want to believe that MLS is going to let Lew Wolff do whatever the hell he wants, feel free. But you're deluding yourself. As far as I know, MLS, which owns 51% of the team, has required that all of the stadiums built so far be built to FIFA standards. Why would they change their minds now?
     
  11. Albany58

    Albany58 Member+

    Sep 14, 1999
    Concord, CA USA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Damned right. If it had been written by Americans it would have said "Make sure you got a couple of shithouses and a pisstube."
     
  12. BelmontSS

    BelmontSS New Member

    Aug 18, 2008
    Redwood trees, oak trees, lots of lawn, real ale, imported lager, authentic English food, terraces for people who would rather stand up, cover from the rain, easy access to the train station, fan shop, and solar panels!

    Get rid of the snack hawkers - they are annoying. Instead, serve real food and make it easy to access.

    Give people an incentive to take the train.

    Call me crazy, but I think fancy lavatories are a waste of money! A blue shithouse w/piss tube suits me fine.
     
  13. OffMyLine

    OffMyLine Member

    Nov 30, 2007
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes. Recommendations that are applicable to all new football stadiums. No mention of requirement
    Yes these are the requirements.
    Yes and these are the recommendations.

    The report was titled "Recommendation and Requirements". If we asume that all the data in here are requirements, then they got the title wrong. It's pretty clear that the requirements were treated differently; pulled out and highlighted - as they should be. The requirements only applied to the WC. Everything else was a recommendation. Think about it. Would FIFA consider a 2nd division team in Sierra Leone in non-compliance because they only have 1 hair dryer in their new stadium? I don't think so.

    We're already doing it. We are in a new stadium. We have player shells that are kept in storage because the FO doesn't want to use them. I don't know if you think that's a requirement or not based on this document but our FO chose not to use them because the fans didn't like them.

    I'll trust Wolff to build what's best for the fans not some Eurpoean bureaucrat.
     
  14. chapka

    chapka Member+

    May 18, 2004
    Haverford, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In the text itself, it gives a recommended distance and a minimum distance. That's a recommendation and a requirement.

    Wolff owns 49% of your team. MLS owns 51%.
     
  15. OffMyLine

    OffMyLine Member

    Nov 30, 2007
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They gave "optimum" and "minimum" and just like the recommended "minimum" number of hair dryers, they were excluded from the requirements section and were never refered to as requirements.

    True but Wolff will own 100% of the stadium. And from what I understand the league wanted the player shells installed and our FO said no.
     
  16. Albany58

    Albany58 Member+

    Sep 14, 1999
    Concord, CA USA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    With Chaucerian barmaids.
     
  17. Earthshaker

    Earthshaker BigSoccer Supporter

    Sep 12, 2005
    The hills above town
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There already is a British Pub on Coleman, the Royal Oak. My pre-game tradition is to go there and have two pints of Boddington's and Fish-n-chips with mushy peas.

    (No Chaucerian barmaids though.:()
     
  18. Tifosi FC

    Tifosi FC New Member

    Oct 25, 2008
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
  19. leocal11

    leocal11 Member+

    Feb 7, 2005
    San Francisco
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  20. tonyh01

    tonyh01 Member

    Nov 9, 2003
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why stop at 2 pints? The stadium will be within walking distance :D
     
  21. Childs Play

    Childs Play Member

    Mar 29, 2008
    Behind you,.. BOO!
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    That's a sweet little stadium. Too bad our current ownership seems to prefer the Texas high school model.:mad:
     
  22. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True it's a sweet stadium, but read it's history...

    http://www.liberty-stadium.com/liberty_stadium_introduction.php

    The city provided the land and massive incentives for the stadium to be built as well as. It was heavily dependent on public funding just like most SSSs built in the US. It was also dependent on a land deal not unlike the A's plans in Fremont, which we know aren't possible anymore thanks to the Great Recession.

    Ours is being built entirely privately financed, remember that. Wolff is opening his wallet for every dollar spent on this stadium thanks to San Jose's highly restrictive laws and Californian's dislike of spending any money on sports teams and the tanked economy.
     
  23. Childs Play

    Childs Play Member

    Mar 29, 2008
    Behind you,.. BOO!
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Oh, right, I forgot. We need to kiss Wolff's old wrinkly @ss because he wants to build a stadium that will keep San Jose a minor player in a major league for years to come.. We deserve no better.

    Public involvement or lack thereof be damned. Wolff and Fischer are billionaires who will make out like bandits from the land deal that will give them roughly 1 million square feet of commercial, retail and hotel space adjacent to the city maintained airport and stadium.

    The economic downturn is really more of a benefit to Wolff in the sense that it has taken virtually all competition off the table for the land that has now been reduced in price by 30%. If this venture was taking place in 2005 instead of today, Wolff would probably find himself competing with several developers for the land he is now acquiring at a rock bottom price.

    This "no public monies" meme is really tiresome when considering stadiums like Pac-Bell Park which was also built with no public monies. This is just a fact of life doing business in the Bay Area.

    It seems evident that Wolff et. al. just don't really see a great future for the Quakes in San Jose and are not committed to making the team and the stadium a first class enterprise.
     
  24. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    First off, what competition? FMC was sitting there for over a decade before the Quakes showed any interest in it. And to date there have been 0 offers on the site and 0 interest in it from anyone but Wolff. Indeed there was no competition in 2007 and 2008 (before the market collapsed) either.

    Second, yes the land price has been reduced, but that's a result of the market collapse, not any gift from the city (and indeed Wolff is still paying more for the land than the city did when they purchased it). And yes the land will give Wolff retail, R&D, etc... but they're PAYING for that land. It wasn't a gift to them like say... Liberty Stadium and it's surrounding land.

    Third, actually there has never been an entirely privately financed stadium in the Bay Area. Even Pac Bell had approximately 10% public funding (hint the city paid for all the infrastructure work around the stadium and subsudised the land the stadium is built on). The Coliseum rennovations were entirely public funded, as was the SJ Arena, the Oracle Arena rebuild... need I go on?

    I'm not saying kiss Lew's ass, but try and have some respect and perspective. The guy brought our team back when no one else would (and far sooner than anyone of us expected we'd be back) and to date has already spent $40+ million on the team, and will end up spending another 100+ million on just the stadium and the immediate land it sits on before this is all said and done.
     
  25. Childs Play

    Childs Play Member

    Mar 29, 2008
    Behind you,.. BOO!
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    The FMC property has only been owned by the city since 2006 and for all intents and purposes is still a toxic waste site. despite that, it is a prime piece of property located adjacent to the airport and downtown, and was always planned for commercial and industrial operations related to the San Jose International Airport. The property never sat for a decade with no interest from buyers. The city always intended to develop it after FMC finished the required toxic clean up. The property was never available for developement until it was celeaned of it's hazardous waste.

    SF gave the Giants a 10% tax abatement They DID NOT fund 10% of the stadium

    Hint, San Jose will also pay for all the infrastructure work needed to support the new stadium and commercial development.

    No, because the Coliseum, HP Pavillion etc. are non starters when comparing privately funded stadium construction.


    I'm starting to wonder if we would have been served better by waiting for a different purchaser to step up. Wolff was basically the only one approached and had been consistently targeted to purchase the franchise since 2005. We might have done better looking for a different ownership group.

    You keep telling us how we need to appreciate LW for spending 100 million for the stadium and land it sits on. What you are not recognizing is that this is an investment on his part. He is not doing it because he loves soccer or the Quakes, he's doing it to make money and he will make money, hundreds of millions most likely.

    This is not about the money he is spending, it's about the money he is NOT spending. I'm glad the Quakes are back. I'm not so sure I'm glad to have the ownership group we have.

    LW has made the decision to invest the bare minimum he can to make the maximum profit. This is capitalism in it's rawest form. As someone who wants the Quakes to succeed financially and on the field, I cannot help but feel that the tiny, no frills stadium will hold the Quakes back from achieving this success.

    Looking around the league today, seeing rumors of Columbus and DC as targets to relocate, I can hardly imagine having the smallest SSS in the league will guarantee us anything but having the smallest average attendance in the league and will eventually make us a target for yet another relocation. The simple fact is, LW is not building a future for the Quakes, but for the retail, commercial and hotel properties that he is building on the same property as the stadium.
     

Share This Page