Soccer Stadiums of the USA and Canada [Archive] - Page 11

buy

March 21st, 2010, 07:40 AM

...and I have tickets for the game against Chicago! I thought it was still going to be called off because of the strike but when I got home I saw they had signed a 5 year labor contract. Yay for MLS season 2010! My seats were section 227, front row 2nd tier @ midfield!

Pics:

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs082.snc3/14999_1259918307490_1515630379_30817145_1454935_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs102.snc3/14999_1259917347466_1515630379_30817123_5979202_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs082.snc3/14999_1259917387467_1515630379_30817124_7472808_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs102.snc3/14999_1259917587472_1515630379_30817129_8099786_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs082.snc3/14999_1259917747476_1515630379_30817132_7929146_n.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs082.snc3/14999_1259917787477_1515630379_30817133_6159428_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs082.snc3/14999_1259918027483_1515630379_30817139_671246_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs102.snc3/14999_1259918107485_1515630379_30817141_127029_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs102.snc3/14999_1259918187487_1515630379_30817143_2224569_n.jpg

Check out those fans! It was such a great experience. Can't wait for next saturday!

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs082.snc3/14999_1259918347491_1515630379_30817146_1257016_n.jpg

After goal #1

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs102.snc3/14999_1259918427493_1515630379_30817148_6770821_n.jpg

fireworks begin

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs082.snc3/14999_1259918587497_1515630379_30817152_6409135_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs082.snc3/14999_1259918627498_1515630379_30817153_5279915_n.jpg

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs102.snc3/14999_1259918667499_1515630379_30817154_934012_n.jpg

see you march 27!

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs082.snc3/14999_1259918867504_1515630379_30817158_1886647_n.jpg

dl3000

March 21st, 2010, 08:14 AM

Both of New York's ballparks are 1 year old.

Yankees, Mets, Rangers, Knicks, and Liberty all play in NYC. The Nets will also be playing in NYC, and maybe even the Islanders, eventually.

Yes I know but how far are they from the original locations? Yeah I forgot Madison Square Garden (Penn Station should have stayed as it was).

RBA looks awesome.

Kazurro

March 21st, 2010, 02:08 PM

And how many season tickets has NY Red Bulls sell? Do you expect attendance to rise up?

And by the way, what has changed with the new CBA, salary cap has rised up?

buy

March 21st, 2010, 06:33 PM

And how many season tickets has NY Red Bulls sell? Do you expect attendance to rise up?

I think its around 8k now. The target I think was 6k, so they did well there. I know they for sure are going to sell more season tickets. The person I went to the game with had never been to a game before and now wants season tickets.

As for attendance...eh, maybe 18k average? I doubt they will sell out all of the games, but they should improve on last seasons average.

Aka

March 21st, 2010, 06:56 PM

For the Portuguese: what's so great about this video? :banana:
AvK2E2zmpJc

4Xd5cbO4rl0

ryebreadraz

March 21st, 2010, 08:50 PM

And how many season tickets has NY Red Bulls sell? Do you expect attendance to rise up?

And by the way, what has changed with the new CBA, salary cap has rised up?

I've heard that things went over so well last night that the 8k season ticket holders they had yesterday could be 9k by the open of the MLS season. I agree with the above poster that 18k will likely be the average attendance, although if RBNY play very well, I could see late season attendance jumping to push the season average to 20k.

The new CBA has done a few things. One, is players who are 24 or older and have played in the league for three or more years will not have guaranteed contacts. Another is that players who are out of contract can go into a re-entry draft instead of having his MLS right held onto by his former team. The third big one is a higher salary cap, although how much higher has not been released yet.

Scba

March 21st, 2010, 11:24 PM

The Rochester stadium is nice, but looks very cheap.

Nexis

March 22nd, 2010, 06:00 AM

ElVoltageDR

March 22nd, 2010, 05:09 PM

If the team is winning I think they will be selling out more often than not.

GunnerJacket

March 22nd, 2010, 05:35 PM

But when Rutgers Univ Plays there games there , it will be a sell out. When/why would Rutgers play there? It's too small for their football team and far too big for their footie or lacrosse teams. And since they just completed a $100M expansion of their football stadium to 53k why would they even need to play at RBA? I've not heard anything about this so if you've got some info I'd greatly appreciate the link.

- - - - - -

Yes, Rochester's stadium is cheap but keep in mind that's not MLS. For what they have I think it's a fabulous stadium and I pray that as pro soccer evolves in the US they remain in the loop: Pending the fate of NASL/USL the Rhinos could be reduced to D2/D3 level play rather then given a shot to move up to MLS, which would be a shame for this great community. This is the one thing that I fear about Canadian expansion, wherein some US cities are left out. I'm not against Canadian clubs, I would just hate to see places like Rochester (or St. Louis, Minnesota, etc) left out because of some possible arbitrary cap on the number of teams.

Rant over.

- - - - - - -

Congrats to NJ and the RB:NY fans! Great venue and the game against Santos made for a fantastic TV experience. Still rooting for the team to be sold or rebranded, but otherwise I'm very happy for you lot. :cheers:

Nexis

March 22nd, 2010, 05:42 PM

If the team is winning I think they will be selling out more often than not.

True , but i still think the Collage games will attract more.:)

Nexis

March 22nd, 2010, 05:45 PM

When/why would Rutgers play there? It's too small for their football team and far too big for their footie or lacrosse teams. And since they just completed a $100M expansion of their football stadium to 53k why would they even need to play at RBA? I've not heard anything about this so if you've got some info I'd greatly appreciate the link.

- - - - - -

Yes, Rochester's stadium is cheap but keep in mind that's not MLS. For what they have I think it's a fabulous stadium and I pray that as pro soccer evolves in the US they remain in the loop: Pending the fate of NASL/USL the Rhinos could be reduced to D2/D3 level play rather then given a shot to move up to MLS, which would be a shame for this great community. This is the one thing that I fear about Canadian expansion, wherein some US cities are left out. I'm not against Canadian clubs, I would just hate to see places like Rochester (or St. Louis, Minnesota, etc) left out because of some possible arbitrary cap on the number of teams.

Rant over.

- - - - - - -

Congrats to NJ and the RB:NY fans! Great venue and the game against Santos made for a fantastic TV experience. Still rooting for the team to be sold or rebranded, but otherwise I'm very happy for you lot. :cheers:

There are rumors floating around in the NJ Sports depts that Rutgers and some high schools will play there big games there.

GunnerJacket

March 22nd, 2010, 06:23 PM

There are rumors floating around in the NJ Sports depts that Rutgers and some high schools will play there big games there.For what sport? Soccer? I'm not denying the idea but simply wondering if that's a cost efficient move for the university. I'm pretty sure that's not a cheap place to rent, and I can't see those events drawing 10k fans.

SeñorGuillermo

March 22nd, 2010, 06:29 PM

Talking about USA stadiums, I will be visiting NJ/NY these summer during May for a soccer match on the Meadowlands Stadium.

I think it's a new stadiums, who will replace the Giant's Stadium.

I'll be sure to post some photos.

Cheers.

metros11

March 22nd, 2010, 06:50 PM

I don't think the Red bull's will get alot of sold out games. Except for games against other popular leagues. Alot of my Soccer Friends dislike them to other teams. But when Rutgers Univ Plays there games there , it will be a sell out.

And yet more proof that Nexis talks out of his @$$.

What 'Rutgers University' sport are you talking about? Football, Soccer, LaCrosse? Football team has no reason to play there as they have their own 50,000 stadium, and average over 45,000 fans. Why would they downsize, make less money, and pay more to do so? What planet are you from?

And there is no way shape or form that the Rutgers soccer team would be able to draw 25,000 fans to their games. The only college event currently scheduled for RBA is the Big East soccer semi-finals and finals. And they'll be lucky if they draw 5,000 fans to that.

metros11

March 22nd, 2010, 06:51 PM

There are rumors floating around in the NJ Sports depts that Rutgers and some high schools will play there big games there.

Rumors? Please provide a link to the said 'rumors'. Don't just say 'rumors' because YOU made it up.

JerseyFKY

March 22nd, 2010, 07:45 PM

I don't think the Red bull's will get alot of sold out games. Except for games against other popular leagues. Alot of my Soccer Friends dislike them to other teams. But when Rutgers Univ Plays there games there , it will be a sell out. But i hope this is the final spark that puts Newark back on the map for people moving into the NYC Metro and i hope this accelerates the Urban Renewal in the Elizabeth-Newark-Jersey City area.

I'm really starting to question if you have any idea what the hell you are talking about..... pretty much ever.

Rutgers Univ is going to sell out a game there when they have their own stadium already on campus "Yucak Field" that holds a modest 5,000
fans: http://www.scarletknights.com/facilities/yurcak.asp

Please dont tell me your talking about Rugers-Newark campus.

Lastly.. they'll only sell out when they play games agains teams from other leagues?? When will this happen?? Exhibitions? CONCACAF Champions League?

The point of the 25,000 seat stadium was not to promote more sellouts.. its so those crowds of 18 - 19, 000 dont look as empty as opposed to Giants Stadium. That was one of the points of this whole thing!

JerseyFKY

March 22nd, 2010, 07:48 PM

Rumors? Please provide a link to the said 'rumors'. Don't just say 'rumors' because YOU made it up.

There are zero rumors. He has no idea what he's talking about. Rutgers wants to bus their team up from campus every home game to play in a stadium that holds 25,000 people when maybe 2,000 will come to see them? If that many..

This has zero validity to it and its never happening. They have a nice stadium on campus and are going no where.

Nexis

March 22nd, 2010, 09:35 PM

There are zero rumors. He has no idea what he's talking about. Rutgers wants to bus their team up from campus every home game to play in a stadium that holds 25,000 people when maybe 2,000 will come to see them? If that many..

This has zero validity to it and its never happening. They have a nice stadium on campus and are going no where.

Hench why there rumors , there not actually things that might happen. In any event , i could care less about the stadium and team itself. I'm more focused on what positive developments and things this stadium will bring.

SaRaJeVo-City

March 22nd, 2010, 09:43 PM

What was the cost of the RedBulls stadium, and is the grass artificial or actual grass....

ElVoltageDR

March 22nd, 2010, 10:10 PM

What was the cost of the RedBulls stadium, and is the grass artificial or actual grass....

Don't know about the costs, but it is actual grass.

Bobby3

March 22nd, 2010, 11:04 PM

RBA is simply an amazing venue.

eMKay

March 22nd, 2010, 11:24 PM

According to Wiki, it cost $180,000,000-200,000,000 (estimated) Guess it's a secret :) And not a bad cost for a stadium that size

nyrmetros

March 23rd, 2010, 12:58 AM

http://www.dailyharrison.com/images/stories/Photography/In_Pictures_RBA_Opening/18.jpg

http://www.dailyharrison.com/images/stories/Photography/In_Pictures_RBA_Opening/17.jpg

Bossman1

March 23rd, 2010, 09:29 PM

According to Wiki, it cost $180,000,000-200,000,000 (estimated) Guess it's a secret :) And not a bad cost for a stadium that size

What are you talking about.
RBA's mother, Wörtherseestadion in Klagenfurt, cost not more than $100 million.
It was 7,000 seats bigger!!
This was a costly stadium in NY, make no mistake about that.

eMKay

March 24th, 2010, 04:32 AM

I'm talking about a stadium built in the NYC metro area, and comparing it with other American stadiums, what are you talking about?

GunnerJacket

March 24th, 2010, 04:49 AM

What are you talking about.
RBA's mother, Wörtherseestadion in Klagenfurt, cost not more than $100 million.
It was 7,000 seats bigger!!
This was a costly stadium in NY, make no mistake about that.I could be wrong, but I think the prices for construction in NY and NJ are just slightly high due to requirements for union labor. And by slightly high I mean in the way that as a club Real Madrid is just slightly bigger than Getafe. ;)

Bobby3

March 24th, 2010, 05:26 AM

70,000 expected at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte tomorrow to watch Iceland play.

Mexico is playing, too.

hngcm

March 24th, 2010, 06:50 AM

70,000 expected at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte tomorrow to watch Iceland play.

Mexico is playing, too.

Damn I didn't know Iceland had that many followers!

Alx-D

March 24th, 2010, 01:40 PM

Charlotte: Home of NASCAR and Icelandic Soccer supporters...doesn't seem right. Who are they playing is the question.

Aka

March 24th, 2010, 03:08 PM

One of those unknown nations... Probably from the Caribbean or the Pacific... What was its name?....... Errrrrr....... Meinco..... Mensco..... Mezko.......

GunnerJacket

March 24th, 2010, 05:03 PM

70,000 expected at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte tomorrow to watch Iceland play.

Mexico is playing, too.

Outstandingly played, sir. Great laugh to start the day! :cheers:

sbutlik

March 24th, 2010, 06:18 PM

The next MLS city?

massp88

March 24th, 2010, 07:11 PM

Damn I didn't know Iceland had that many followers!

They are playing Mexico, so that's the reason so many will be there.

Bobby3

March 24th, 2010, 07:32 PM

The next MLS city?

We're looking for a team in the Iceland League. Obviously we're spiritual Icelanders.

We DO have a lot of bankers.

massp88

March 24th, 2010, 09:28 PM

The next MLS city?

Highly doubtful.

The MLS will be at 18 teams after Vancouver and Portland come online next season. The MLS should realistically be a 20-22 team league and nothing more.

They have already stated they would like to be at 20 teams for 2012 with St. Louis, Ottawa and Montreal as the front runners. Those cities were all very close to getting the spots Vancouver and Portland got.

Scba

March 24th, 2010, 11:07 PM

They are playing Mexico, so that's the reason so many will be there.

Oh, okay.

Benn

March 25th, 2010, 01:52 AM

ryebreadraz

March 25th, 2010, 02:12 AM

Highly doubtful.

The MLS will be at 18 teams after Vancouver and Portland come online next season. The MLS should realistically be a 20-22 team league and nothing more.

They have already stated they would like to be at 20 teams for 2012 with St. Louis, Ottawa and Montreal as the front runners. Those cities were all very close to getting the spots Vancouver and Portland got.

Montreal will get team #19 so we're looking for team #20 and I think Charlotte has as good of a chance as a few other cities.

There is some backlash to Montreal already because Canada has gotten a team ahead of other US cities. As a result, I think Ottawa is out. St. Louis still does not have the money in ownership to get it done. If they did, they'd have a team by now.

MLS wants to get into the south so Atlanta, with ownership by Arthur Blank, will be choice #1. Whether he can get a stadium or wants to push hard enough for a stadium right now is up for debate and Miami as choice #2 has a lot of problems. Charlotte would be away into the south, does not have a MLB team so there's less competition in the summer, has a nice soccer city, both youth and professional, but the problem is ownership. Nobody has stepped up for ownership and that majorly holds them back before you even get into stadium issues. If the ownership can be sorted out, they have a chance.

JYDA

March 25th, 2010, 03:25 AM

I can understand the idea behind the backlash to montreal but I have to laugh at the argument I hear from people that Montreal is somehow jumping the line. The reality is that there is no line and Joey Saputo is the only guy knocking at the door.

In reality I don't think there's any need for concern with with respect to expansion spots being taken away from American cities. FIFA's rules on limiting league sizes is only meant to limit schedule size but without a balanced schedule it doesnt really matter. Even if MLS eventually expands to 30 teams the league would still make sure the schedule remained at approximately 30 games. That'll never change.

People also worry about diluting the talent pool but unlike other sports it's a global marketplace. Talent dilution is easily solved by adding imports.

If the league eventually gets to 28 or 30 teams I think it would be a plus for the league with the broader footprint. Garber's talk of limiting the league to 22 or 24 teams are just empty threats to create a sense of urgency which helps justify the 35 million dollar expansion fee. The league will NEVER say no to $35 million as long as there's someone willing to pay it.

koolio

March 25th, 2010, 05:00 AM

I hope to god that the league does not expand beyond 22-24. It is hard enough trying to sell the quality of soccer as it is that we can certainly do without some severe talent dilution. I think even the NBA and especially NHL should have 24 teams as opposed to 30.

Once Montreal makes it 19, I think the league should put a soft cap on expansion after the 20th spot is handed out. To be honest, I hope the 20th spot is given to Miami where as Chivas USA are sold and re-branded as a normal MLS team and moved to St.Louis. That would be ideal in my opinion. After those 2 cities, I don't think there will be any "can't miss" markets left in all of North America. The league should then shift their focus on ensuring that teams like Columbus Crew and KC Wizards do not go under.

marionthebarberian

March 25th, 2010, 05:56 AM

a soccer team in miami is a very bad location. look at their nba and mlb attendance.

atlanta or charlotte would make a better location.

BoulderGrad

March 25th, 2010, 08:58 AM

BoulderGrad

March 25th, 2010, 09:00 AM

Delete, double post

Aka

March 25th, 2010, 12:27 PM

Majority of Americans would be for promotion-relegation. It's the owners that would be against it, for obvious reasons. Hence it will never happen here.

They might be, but I don't know if they would be ready for it when it happens. Especially for a league where its clubs are still trying to get a big fanbase.

matthemod

March 25th, 2010, 03:17 PM

I was going to ask whether such a two tiered set up could work, coming from the country with such a large promotion/relegation history, and supporting a team who in recent years have done both, I can tell you it adds an entirely new element to the mix.

If you're playing bad you can't just sit back and hope next year will be better like in other Major League sports, it adds the relegation battle aspect which can be more exciting than the title! Then on the other hand there is no better feeling than watching your team get promoted, as you have the tension over whether your team can maintain such form, inevitably one team will always start off well and then flounder, allowing another team to potentially sneak in to a promotion place. It's the promotion/relegation aspect that makes football in the rest of the world so exciting, I would love to see the MLS get to a stage of security and popularity where it could implement such a system.

504souldja

March 25th, 2010, 04:36 PM

Alx-D

March 25th, 2010, 04:39 PM

Americans are scared of pro/rel. It's not happening.

metros11

March 25th, 2010, 05:18 PM

Americans are scared of pro/rel. It's not happening.

Majority of Americans would be for promotion-relegation. It's the owners that would be against it, for obvious reasons. Hence it will never happen here.

As far as expansion, Montreal is almost a lock for #19, but #20 is wide open, meaning there's no talk of #20.

ryebreadraz

March 25th, 2010, 05:47 PM

Majority of Americans would be for promotion-relegation. It's the owners that would be against it, for obvious reasons. Hence it will never happen here.

As far as expansion, Montreal is almost a lock for #19, but #20 is wide open, meaning there's no talk of #20.

Exactly. If you're an owner, you're not paying a $40 million expansion fee and helping to build a stadium just to possibly get relegated. Relegation is not happening here.

massp88

March 25th, 2010, 07:20 PM

MLS should be over 30 teams, but in a 2 tiered promotion/relegation setup. The tiers could be around 16 teams each for a total of 32 teams. It wouldn't take too long to get together, and doesn't necessarily have to start at 32 teams. We almost have enough soccer franchises as it is:

Current MLS Franchises (18 teams):
Chicago
Columbus
DC
Kansas City
New England
New York Red Bulls
Philadelphia
Toronto
Chivas
Colorado
Dallas
Houston
LA
Salt Lake
San Jose
Seattle
Portland
Vancouver

Serious Possible Expansion Franchises (8 Teams)
Miami
Ottawa
Montreal
Atlanta
Saint Louis
San Antonio
New York #2

USSF D2 franchise cities not already mentioned above (8 Teams):
Puerto Rico
Baltimore
Carolina
Edmonton
Minneapolis/Saint Paul
Rochester
Austin
Tampa Bay

I am a fan of the relegation system, like they have over in England, Germnay, etc. It keeps things interesting and gives smaller clubs the change to play with the big boys. I also think they should have a cup similar to the FA cup over in Europe where all club teams, regardless of size/league, play to determine the best club in the country. (correct me if there is already one in place)

24 seems like a nice number, and they should have no trouble finding willing and supportive cities for another three after those (Milwaukee, San Diego, San Francisco, 2nd Toronto, 2nd New York, maybe a florida experiment again, ect). Although 30 like the other high professional leagues is probably a bit much.

30 is way too much for the MLS. England for example has 20 in their top tier league and soccer is their #1 sport. I know the U.S. is larger in both size and population, but England supports soccer much better.

I hope to god that the league does not expand beyond 22-24. It is hard enough trying to sell the quality of soccer as it is that we can certainly do without some severe talent dilution. I think even the NBA and especially NHL should have 24 teams as opposed to 30.

Once Montreal makes it 19, I think the league should put a soft cap on expansion after the 20th spot is handed out. To be honest, I hope the 20th spot is given to Miami where as Chivas USA are sold and re-branded as a normal MLS team and moved to St.Louis. That would be ideal in my opinion. After those 2 cities, I don't think there will be any "can't miss" markets left in all of North America. The league should then shift their focus on ensuring that teams like Columbus Crew and KC Wizards do not go under.

Kansas City desperately needs a soccer only stadium. Having 12,000 people in a 75,000 seat stadium is awful.

krudmonk

March 25th, 2010, 10:47 PM

30 is way too much for the MLS. England for example has 20 in their top tier league and soccer is their #1 sport. I know the U.S. is larger in both size and population, but England supports soccer much better.
That's because they prefer a double round robin format. They could easily have well-supported teams down to League Two, like Bradford. We prefer the conference setup. So be it.

Hansadyret

March 25th, 2010, 11:12 PM

I also think they should have a cup similar to the FA cup over in Europe where all club teams, regardless of size/league, play to determine the best club in the country. (correct me if there is already one in place)

I think there allready is an US open cup where all clubs can participate. Same in Canada for the Canadian clubs, voyagers cup i think it's called.

Even if i'm not from north america and more of an outsider looking in, it looks as if Montreal would be a good addition in MLS. My impression is that people in Montreal allready supports their team very well.

Alx-D

March 25th, 2010, 11:12 PM

We prefer the conference setup. So be it.

Who is we? I personally hate the system.

Hansadyret

March 25th, 2010, 11:40 PM

Exactly. If you're an owner, you're not paying a $40 million expansion fee and helping to build a stadium just to possibly get relegated. Relegation is not happening here.

I love promotion and relegation but i agree, it would problably not work and is way to early in north america for soccer.
Most of the teams are still very new with short history and will probably not be supported enough to survive relegation. In other parts of the world clubs will still survise because they have been around and part of communities for 100+ years.

In other american sports with long history like baseball it could probably work. Imagine hundreds of professional baseballclubs with a possibility to jump up the leagues if they do their stuff well. Clubs or franchises as they call it that don't even try their best would be relegated.

weava

March 26th, 2010, 12:00 AM

Kansas City desperately needs a soccer only stadium. Having 12,000 people in a 75,000 seat stadium is awful.

they haven't played in a 75k stadium for a few years, and they are already building a new stadium.....

krudmonk

March 26th, 2010, 02:31 AM

Who is we? I personally hate the system.
I was speaking as a collective MLS, fans and all. Personally, I could go for the round robin schedule but I would also like more teams. It's a tossup, really.

nyrmetros

March 26th, 2010, 06:54 AM

I could be wrong, but I think the prices for construction in NY and NJ are just slightly high due to requirements for union labor. And by slightly high I mean in the way that as a club Real Madrid is just slightly bigger than Getafe. ;)

Construction prices in NY/ Northern NJ is MEGA expensive.......... no getting around it.

bigbossman

March 26th, 2010, 03:23 PM

JYDA

March 26th, 2010, 06:41 PM

Finally, I've heard rumours that most MLS teams aren't in as bad a finanical state as they claim, that is stadium income isn't factored into the strength of teams, is this true?

Not sure about the stadium income part but I do know that one of the dirty little secrets of the league is the profitability of their marketing arm (Soccer United Marketing). SUM controls every lucrative soccer event that happens in the United States from the gold cup to international/club friendlies as well as the tv rights to the Mexican league (by far the most watched soccer league in the Untied States). The most important of all is control of the Mexican national team's neverending US tours that go city to city drawing 50 to 100 thousand no matter where they play or who they play (100 thousand vs Haiti in Dallas, 93 thousand vs New Zealand in LA, 70 thousand vs Iceland's B team in Charlotte).

The league insists on claiming SUM as a seperate entity especially when it came to collective bargaining with the players so they can cry poor.

massp88

March 26th, 2010, 07:28 PM

I love promotion and relegation but i agree, it would problably not work and is way to early in north america for soccer.
Most of the teams are still very new with short history and will probably not be supported enough to survive relegation. In other parts of the world clubs will still survise because they have been around and part of communities for 100+ years.

In other american sports with long history like baseball it could probably work. Imagine hundreds of professional baseballclubs with a possibility to jump up the leagues if they do their stuff well. Clubs or franchises as they call it that don't even try their best would be relegated.

Relegation would not work in a sport like MLB because smaller AAA clubs would not be able to compete with the current teams on a financial basis. I realize small teams come into say the EPL and do compete, the cost and expense structure of baseball is far different than soccer.

they haven't played in a 75k stadium for a few years, and they are already building a new stadium.....

Good call out. You are right, I forgot they now play in the ball park.

Alx-D

March 26th, 2010, 08:31 PM

Exactly. If you're an owner, you're not paying a $40 million expansion fee and helping to build a stadium just to possibly get relegated. Relegation is not happening here.

Here's my take on it: The bottom teams don't get relegated. They paid for MLS and the will stay in MLS. However, the top teams will be promoted to MLS Premier, for free! Now that's bang for your buck. Sure it's all semantics, but it's a nice spin on perception.

soup or man

March 26th, 2010, 09:16 PM

So...uhhh...the Union had their first game last night. A losing effort (2-0) to Seattle. Needless to say, they didn't get a friendly welcome to MLS.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4463560785_668106e480_b.jpg
marc tacoma

lpioe

March 26th, 2010, 10:18 PM

^^ Is Seattle still selling out in their 2nd season?

Aka

March 26th, 2010, 10:22 PM

^^ Is Seattle still selling out in their 2nd season?

http://www.mlssoccer.com/content/highlights-phi-sea

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gIigrF6NQ5cc/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01XadzjdYvgDV/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04xXbC96np80O/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06vN0SEbyV3xk/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/09LPfqZ8FF5pS/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0f0590E2Me9YP/610x.jpg

Benn

March 26th, 2010, 10:31 PM

Looks like they've opened up the first few rows of the upper deck.

hngcm

March 26th, 2010, 11:21 PM

36,000 saw the opening game, nice!

RaiderATO

March 26th, 2010, 11:46 PM

Alan21LP

March 27th, 2010, 12:13 AM

I'm pretty ignorant on this, so bear with me.

Are there any "uniquely American" things happening with the MLS fans/clubs? Or are we just "copying" European, Mexican, Central/South American soccer customs?

Seattle's scarves seem to have a European heritage (again, ignorant, correct me if I'm wrong), the flags, banners, etc. aren't used in any other "American" sports. I accept chanting/singing but are the teams fans using original chants (are there even any truly original chants?) or are they copying other clubs' chants?

I guess, as a sports fan (and soccer is a sport), I'm trying to find something to get behind that makes MLS uniquely "American" amidst the sea of foreign influence.

I see no problem with that, football is universal, it is normal to adopt certain customs of other countries or continents, that creates a real football atmosphere. In addition, some soccer leagues have been influenced by customs that U.S. sports fans do, things like cheerleaders, mascots, white handkerchiefs, and so on.

The use of scarves, chants, 'sopporters groups', including flares and smoke, creating a perfect environment for football worldwide.

U.S people should stop watching football as a sport outsider.

MY OPINION.

soup or man

March 27th, 2010, 12:27 AM

carlspannoosh

March 27th, 2010, 12:31 AM

In regards to team names and fan culture everyone does copy everyone else in football. Regional characteristics filter through though and that's what will happen in the US if MLS takes off.
Even from watching that Seattle footage, despite the obviously European and South American style scarves and banners you can hear the fans using a chant you don't hear outside the US and so they are starting to carve out a unique identity. Even without chants American crowds sound completely different to English crowds and they sound completely different to Turkish crowds.That type of variety is one of the appealing things about football being such a world sport.

Scba

March 27th, 2010, 12:36 AM

Something about it reeks as being phony, seeing it coming from Seattle, which just started up. (Yes, I know that they existed prior to MLS inclusion, but were hardly a big deal)

nyrmetros

March 27th, 2010, 12:43 AM

Something about it reeks as being phony, seeing it coming from Seattle, which just started up. (Yes, I know that they existed prior to MLS inclusion, but were hardly a big deal)

Seattle has a long history of involvement in American soccer. Though proper organization of the club certainly helps. Can't say we've had a proper organization with the NY MLS team all these years.

Livno80101

March 27th, 2010, 01:38 AM

Seattle franchise is best thing that happened to MLS since league is established... great atmosphere, great soccer fans, I was delighted last night at Qwest Field, like I was on some European stadium... and I hope Union can make good impact to the league, especially when they move to their new stadium

and about promotion/relegation - it is hardly to expect; there should be at least 32 franchises, to establish two levels of 16 teams (less than 16 is ridiculous for such a big country)... maybe in 20-30 years

krudmonk

March 27th, 2010, 02:25 AM

mattec

March 27th, 2010, 02:53 AM

http://www.mlssoccer.com/content/highlights-phi-sea

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01XadzjdYvgDV/610x.jpg

:naughty:

matthemod

March 27th, 2010, 03:26 AM

Maybe there is a bit of trying to imitate a European/South American feel to the sport in the U.S. and to be honest I cannot see whether it should be a big deal or not. The popularity of the sport over the last 5 years or so (maybe even more) has just rocketed and that's something the U.S. should be proud of!

Besides it's early days still, i'm sure fans from Columbus being one of the first mls franchises have far more songs now than when they first started, and i'm sure the Union will develop some eventually. For the mean time i'm quite liking watching U.S. fans enjoying football with an international flare! It's not as if they do it for anything else! *tongue firmly in cheek*

Bobby3

March 27th, 2010, 05:50 AM

I'm pretty ignorant on this, so bear with me.

Are there any "uniquely American" things happening with the MLS fans/clubs? Or are we just "copying" European, Mexican, Central/South American soccer customs?

Seattle's scarves seem to have a European heritage (again, ignorant, correct me if I'm wrong), the flags, banners, etc. aren't used in any other "American" sports. I accept chanting/singing but are the teams fans using original chants (are there even any truly original chants?) or are they copying other clubs' chants?

I guess, as a sports fan (and soccer is a sport), I'm trying to find something to get behind that makes MLS uniquely "American" amidst the sea of foreign influence.

Soccer is more tribal than other sports, even in other countries. You can't really say "European" because English football is so different from German football, Italian football, Spanish football or Dutch football. Even London and Manchester aren't the same culturally, and the clubs are reflective of that. If you want to go even further, look at the city of Hamburg. It's home to two wildly different club cultures in Hamburg SV and FC St Pauli. The latter has become iconic in punk circles world wide, and claims to have more female supporters than any sports team in the world.

As such, rather than adopt an "American" identity, American clubs tend to borrow from civic culture. This is present in places like Chicago and Portland especially. Even Columbus has its own thing.

nyrmetros

March 27th, 2010, 04:01 PM

Hopefully someone get take pics of the PATH ride to RBA. People need to know how simple it is. It's $1.75 metrocard away from midtown or downtown.

dl3000

March 27th, 2010, 04:33 PM

I think the fact that we call the game "soccer" and the rugby based game on the gridiron "football" in the mainstream is pretty uniquely American. Apparently back in the day the USSF originally used the term Association Football (soccer comes from the word asSOCiation for those who don't know) like the rest of the world but dropped it when the NFL got popular. I don't really like that fact but its American.

Scba

March 27th, 2010, 04:43 PM

Though I find it funny that the majority of the English-speaking (English as a first language) people of the world call it soccer. America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, sometimes Ireland. Not saying it's right, I'm just saying with it is.

ak72

March 27th, 2010, 06:27 PM

Firstly can someone tell me why the expansion fee is not payable pro rata, adjusted for inflation over a period of 10 years? Surely it would work out better for the league as instead of seattle having to spend $30 million to enter, they'd spend $3 million and then would have $27 million to invest in other things... surely it would stop the league being prohibitively expensive to join, as more ownership groups would be able to raise larger amounts over a longer period. The extra revenue that the Sounders have no doubt brought into the league surely is more than enough to justify them or any prospective new entrant paying an expansion fee over a longer period. It just smacks of greed on the owners part to me.

Secondly, it's that same greed that seems to prohibit Relegation and promotion (sport in Europe still has a not-for-profit, no one should take money out of the game ethos). I don't know how many of you are familiar with how the football league (in England) was originally set up? Anyway it used to be four divisions with the bottom 4 teams from the fourth division standing for re-election and the best semi professional (hence the name non league) teams would apply to replace them. Well basically MLS could surely incorporate the format that way, they are fearful that LA or NY would get relegated, and they don't want to drop the hard cap, well then weight it so that LA or NY are unlikely to get relegated by introducing elected promotion and relegation between say MLS and MLS2, just an idea.

Finally, I've heard rumours that most MLS teams aren't in as bad a finanical state as they claim, that is stadium income isn't factored into the strength of teams, is this true?

To your first point, the teams buying in, are buying in to become owners. The owners of Seattle are now part owners of the league. So it certainly isn't greed on the part of the owners. But here is the thing, the entry fee is as high as someone will pay. If they lowered it to $3 million for instance, you would have a flock of groups in various cities wanting a team who might not be able to support it long term. The big thing with MLS is controlled growth. Adding two teams next year is very aggressive for MLS. If they could not get more owner groups to join in the future at the pace MLS wants to pursue, they they would lower the price to attract more teams. But if there are a couple groups willing to pay the $40 million price tag, then it ensures slow and steady growth, and ensures that the owners have done their research and believe they can have a successful market and aren't just throwing money at something they think can work. Which, would hurt all of MLS in the long run.

To your second point. Look at how much more teams are supported when they make the jump from USL to MLS. Seattle? If a team was relegated to the second division, not saying everyone would leave, but the casual sports fans who come out would largely start to go away because their team isn't playing at the highest level. And would go back to focusing on the other 'Major League' teams in their city. I think everyone would like pro/rel and understands why its good. But at the young state MLS is in(15 years is not long) without a stable long term position, a top team in a top market getting relegated could spell disaster for the league as a whole. Remember the single entity structure MLS has means the league takes most of the revenue but pays all of the players, and loosing support in top television markets would negatively impact the rest of the league. At some point pro/rel will come, once everything has stabilized more (MLS 20-24 teams) and a stable USSL-2 (the new combo of USL and the group which broke off of USL). Once everything is stable (markets, fan bases, finances) then I could see the two coming together for pro/rel. But right now MLS is too young and unstable and pro/rel could cripple the league.

I think the main point you have is the greedy owners are hurting the league. But remember, without the owners there would be no league. The owners are doing what is best for their investment, and what is best for their investment is a successful league, and a successful league is what is best for the fans and players.

massp88

March 27th, 2010, 06:45 PM

I'm pretty ignorant on this, so bear with me.

Are there any "uniquely American" things happening with the MLS fans/clubs? Or are we just "copying" European, Mexican, Central/South American soccer customs?

Seattle's scarves seem to have a European heritage (again, ignorant, correct me if I'm wrong), the flags, banners, etc. aren't used in any other "American" sports. I accept chanting/singing but are the teams fans using original chants (are there even any truly original chants?) or are they copying other clubs' chants?

I guess, as a sports fan (and soccer is a sport), I'm trying to find something to get behind that makes MLS uniquely "American" amidst the sea of foreign influence.

What is wrong with the MLS and their fans emulating what they see in other countries? That would be like saying the PGA Tour should have adopted its own customs, separate from the European game.

Soccer is a unique sport from a fans perspective that only rugby union is close to.

Fans chant and sing, they hold up their scarfs. It's all part of the experience.

As other have mentioned, different countries in Europe do different things.

krudmonk

March 27th, 2010, 07:23 PM

BoulderGrad

March 27th, 2010, 10:49 PM

American teams now have their own hooligans:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2011367604_seattle_soccer_hooligans_choke.html

bigbossman

March 27th, 2010, 11:01 PM

To your first point, the teams buying in, are buying in to become owners. The owners of Seattle are now part owners of the league. So it certainly isn't greed on the part of the owners. But here is the thing, the entry fee is as high as someone will pay. If they lowered it to $3 million for instance, you would have a flock of groups in various cities wanting a team who might not be able to support it long term. The big thing with MLS is controlled growth. Adding two teams next year is very aggressive for MLS. If they could not get more owner groups to join in the future at the pace MLS wants to pursue, they they would lower the price to attract more teams. But if there are a couple groups willing to pay the $40 million price tag, then it ensures slow and steady growth, and ensures that the owners have done their research and believe they can have a successful market and aren't just throwing money at something they think can work. Which, would hurt all of MLS in the long run.

To your second point. Look at how much more teams are supported when they make the jump from USL to MLS. Seattle? If a team was relegated to the second division, not saying everyone would leave, but the casual sports fans who come out would largely start to go away because their team isn't playing at the highest level. And would go back to focusing on the other 'Major League' teams in their city. I think everyone would like pro/rel and understands why its good. But at the young state MLS is in(15 years is not long) without a stable long term position, a top team in a top market getting relegated could spell disaster for the league as a whole. Remember the single entity structure MLS has means the league takes most of the revenue but pays all of the players, and loosing support in top television markets would negatively impact the rest of the league. At some point pro/rel will come, once everything has stabilized more (MLS 20-24 teams) and a stable USSL-2 (the new combo of USL and the group which broke off of USL). Once everything is stable (markets, fan bases, finances) then I could see the two coming together for pro/rel. But right now MLS is too young and unstable and pro/rel could cripple the league.

I think the main point you have is the greedy owners are hurting the league. But remember, without the owners there would be no league. The owners are doing what is best for their investment, and what is best for their investment is a successful league, and a successful league is what is best for the fans and players.

My God, if you are gonna quote someone and argue against points that they made make sure you actually read what they wrote and debate actually against that, not what you think or hope they did...

Anyway I never said/suggested that you should lower the expansion fee to $3 million and I never said/suggested they should introduce promotion and relegation as it is in Europe.

Read my post again to see what I actually said

bigbossman

March 27th, 2010, 11:04 PM

Not sure about the stadium income part but I do know that one of the dirty little secrets of the league is the profitability of their marketing arm (Soccer United Marketing). SUM controls every lucrative soccer event that happens in the United States from the gold cup to international/club friendlies as well as the tv rights to the Mexican league (by far the most watched soccer league in the Untied States). The most important of all is control of the Mexican national team's neverending US tours that go city to city drawing 50 to 100 thousand no matter where they play or who they play (100 thousand vs Haiti in Dallas, 93 thousand vs New Zealand in LA, 70 thousand vs Iceland's B team in Charlotte).

The league insists on claiming SUM as a seperate entity especially when it came to collective bargaining with the players so they can cry poor.

So where does that money go then?

bigbossman

March 27th, 2010, 11:15 PM

The English will sometimes call it "soccer," too, but they don't want us to know that.

You sure?

The media sometimes title their programmes using the word soccer to differentiate from the norm or create catchy aliterative names, such as Socer AM or Soccer Saturday, but that's the media.

You'd be hard pressed to find a normal English football fan who would use the word Soccer in everyday conversation. You'll find people who follow Rugby Union or League and/or don't really like football and the fact it claims the name who call it Soccer (read CharlieP).

You'll also find some posh people do too, but it's not a widespread term hence why most people think it's some sort of "americanism".

koolio

March 28th, 2010, 02:06 AM

You sure?

The media sometimes title their programmes using the word soccer to differentiate from the norm or create catchy aliterative names, such as Socer AM or Soccer Saturday, but that's the media.

You'd be hard pressed to find a normal English football fan who would use the word Soccer in everyday conversation. You'll find people who follow Rugby Union or League and/or don't really like football and the fact it claims the name who call it Soccer (read CharlieP).

You'll also find some posh people do too, but it's not a widespread term hence why most people think it's some sort of "americanism".

He never claimed that it was widespread. Various media outlets, Rugby fans and posh people can, at the very least, be described as "sometimes" as qualified as such in krudmonk's post.

bigbossman

March 28th, 2010, 02:09 AM

He never claimed that it was widespread. Various media outlets, Rugby fans and posh people can, at the very least, be described as "sometimes" as qualified as such in krudmonk's post.

I never said he did, but he claimed it was some little dirty little secret that we don't like to admit. I was merely showing that it's no dirty secret and that the people who use the term aren't generally those who follow the sport.

Bobby3

March 28th, 2010, 06:15 PM

American teams now have their own hooligans:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2011367604_seattle_soccer_hooligans_choke.html

They have for awhile.

Rochester and Montreal get in fights sometimes, but nobody notices because it isn't MLS.

jhawkman02

March 29th, 2010, 12:51 AM

Kansas City Wizards Soccer Club has broken ground on a new state-of-art stadium in Kansas City, KS. The stadium will have a capacity of 18,500 with 33 suites and 3 clubs for supporters. Included in the plan is area development that is to include multiple youth fields and a new office for the parent company Cerner.

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ytBoRdQYZp0/S1Zu5dUEmKI/AAAAAAAADfs/TTzWPhB5Yvo/s1600-h/JanRevWizards300dpi.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ytBoRdQYZp0/S1Zu5KgcgZI/AAAAAAAADfk/Vnyur2NK0T0/s1600-h/10-0118+Cauldron+Club+Color+Study.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ytBoRdQYZp0/S1Zu4p9QsKI/AAAAAAAADfc/hK6mpTkLM6Y/s1600-h/10-0118+Stadium+Club+Color+Study.jpg

Livno80101

March 29th, 2010, 01:42 AM

looks brilliant... good job, architect :banana:

BoulderGrad

March 29th, 2010, 03:46 AM

Nice! So with this and Houston getting their stadium deal settled, who's left for getting SSSes?

I got just:
DC
New England
San Jose

All 3 seem to be at some level of planning, but San Jose is probably the furthest along (at least until their plans fall through like DC).

weava

March 29th, 2010, 05:21 AM

and here is the location its being built at, across the street from a huge nascar track 20 minutes from Kansas City, MO
http://www.ragsdalesteel.com/images/album/speedway.jpg

nyrmetros

March 29th, 2010, 05:31 AM

Anyone find pictures from the Metro - Chicago game at RBA?

Aka

March 29th, 2010, 06:47 AM

Another thread to be closed. Jesus, guys! Read the damn rules!

jhawkman02

March 29th, 2010, 08:17 AM

Another thread to be closed. Jesus, guys! Read the damn rules!

Why close it? I might be new so help me out, where are the rules located?

Aka

March 29th, 2010, 03:07 PM

A stadium must be, at least, 30k to have its own thread.

matthemod

March 29th, 2010, 03:54 PM

A pretty pedantic ruling to be honest...but heck rules is rules.

Scba

March 29th, 2010, 04:25 PM

Shame they can't tear out the racetrack, it's one of the dullest tracks on the circuit.

KingmanIII

March 29th, 2010, 04:53 PM

Shame they can't tear out the racetrack, it's one of the dullest tracks on the circuit.
They planned on adding a road course before the economy went to shit. :(

krudmonk

March 29th, 2010, 05:01 PM

That rule is anti-American

soccer.

KingmanIII

March 29th, 2010, 05:03 PM

and here is the location its being built at, across the street from a huge nascar track 20 minutes from Kansas City, MO
http://www.ragsdalesteel.com/images/album/speedway.jpg
It will also be built in the middle of Village West, a mixed-use development that sprang up around the Speedway, which includes Cabela's, Nebraska Furniture Mart, the Legends Shopping Center, and CommunityAmerica Ballpark, the home of the Northern League's T-Bones (and temporary home of the Wizards), among many other things.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/532292420_578ddb6f9e_o.jpg
http://www.architectmagazine.com/Images/tmpC35F.tmp_tcm20-170660.jpg
http://www.kansastravel.org/kansascitykansas/09communityamerica2.JPG

jandeczentar

March 29th, 2010, 05:13 PM

Looks a good project and it's certainly better than having the Wizards continue to play at Arrowhead, which is miles too big for them.

PS. The capacity requirement for threads here should be removed. If it's a stadium or arena and it's under construction then why shouldn't it have it's own page?

jhawkman02

March 29th, 2010, 05:36 PM

Well I hope it doesn't get closed, but I look around the forum and see quite a few post with stadiums way under 30k even under the 18,500 this one has.

KingmanIII

March 29th, 2010, 06:42 PM

Looks a good project and it's certainly better than having the Wizards continue to play at Arrowhead, which is miles too big for them.

They haven't played at Arrowhead for two years -- they've been playing at that baseball park in the last picture.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2621807222_4b8d5bffdc_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2620991359_8043185fd4_b.jpg

massp88

March 29th, 2010, 07:03 PM

Shame they can't tear out the racetrack, it's one of the dullest tracks on the circuit.

It seems every track is pretty dull these days for NASCAR, attendance and TV ratings are both down.

Good for Kansas City. Are there any more renderings for the inside of the stadium?

lpioe

March 29th, 2010, 09:30 PM

massp88

March 29th, 2010, 09:32 PM

http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news;_ylt=Ah5bzEc.MUD4QqsasbeOFiomw7YF?slug=goal-mondaymlsbreakdownnewyorkdi&prov=goal&type=lgns

No surprise here. Red Bull Arena has received good reviews.

Scba

March 29th, 2010, 10:23 PM

:hahano:

Really though, Kansas is pretty awful. Good to way to reaffirm your beliefs if you think Nascar is dull.

SIC

March 30th, 2010, 08:47 AM

Anyone find pictures from the Metro - Chicago game at RBA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KllDmOkkS1c

I was there.....but too busy chanting/drumming/etc to take pics, but others did. And yes, it's a sweet stadium. Although it does have a passing resemblance to the hidenburg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ifDdq1uofw

lol@dancing security at the 30 second mark. You won't see that in the EPL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uESG7V5HLVE
1hr before the game, testing out the acoustic properties of the roof.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tooth_brush_cb/DSC_0201.jpg
The Jersey "sellout".

Oh right, fans of Modern Football/Energy Drinks. They're alright, I suppose. For fans of a plastic team. :cheers:

http://www.dailyharrison.com/images/stories/Photography/In_Pictures_RBA_Opening/17.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgbyd5Bk7kg

krudmonk

March 30th, 2010, 10:52 AM

They're fans of a real team with a plastic owner.

Aka

March 30th, 2010, 03:48 PM

Oh right, fans of Modern Football/Energy Drinks. They're alright, I suppose. For fans of a plastic team. :cheers:

Like Bayer? Like PSV?

FlyingDutchman

March 30th, 2010, 04:20 PM

Like Bayer? Like PSV?

I don't think you can compare PSV to RedBull.
The only comparison is that they are both named after a brand, but PSV started as a football/soccer club for people who worked for Phillips to play at, and not as a club that gets money from a company to buy players.

metros11

March 30th, 2010, 04:58 PM

Oh right, fans of Modern Football/Energy Drinks. They're alright, I suppose. For fans of a plastic team. :cheers:

Plastic, rubber, glass, metal... It doesn't matter. What matters is that we support our local team.

PS. Nice of you guys to come down and see RBA. Maybe some day I'll take a trip to see a concert at Toyota Park.

weava

March 30th, 2010, 11:35 PM

[http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tooth_brush_cb/DSC_0201.jpg
The Jersey "sellout".
]
whats up with the tarped off sections being built with the obstructed view?

ØlandDK

March 31st, 2010, 12:38 AM

I don't think you can compare PSV to RedBull.
The only comparison is that they are both named after a brand, but PSV started as a football/soccer club for people who worked for Phillips to play at, and not as a club that gets money from a company to buy players.

Same goes for Bayer...

JerseyFKY

March 31st, 2010, 01:54 AM

This was the best set of pictures of RBA i have found on the net. If youre wondering about the meeting / drinking place in the pics, its a place near by called 'El Pastor'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/b00zenyc/sets/72157623676076678/show/

El Mariachi

March 31st, 2010, 04:23 AM

good stuff guys. This has been an interesting thread. The Sounders have their own goons now? :nuts: I'll watch my back if I ever make it out there for a Packers v Seahawks game.

That KC stadium looks pretty decent. Has there been any renderings yet for Houston's new joint?

Aka

March 31st, 2010, 04:28 AM

A pretty pedantic ruling to be honest...but heck rules is rules.

Imagine if all stadiums could have their own thread. Now that would be nice... :nuts:

BoulderGrad

March 31st, 2010, 05:32 AM

What was the attendance for RBA on MLS opening day? Did they sell that game out too?

ANTIEMO

April 1st, 2010, 03:10 AM

i loved the new red bull arena.
very nice pitch

ElVoltageDR

April 1st, 2010, 03:41 AM

What was the attendance for RBA on MLS opening day? Did they sell that game out too?

In the neighborhood of 24,500.

ryebreadraz

April 1st, 2010, 04:13 AM

i loved the new red bull arena.
very nice pitch

The pitch is actually below par right now. They has a mishap with the undersoil heating a couple months ago and the grass has yet to settle. They had to put sand over it so it would be playable and it got torn up too easily. I think they said that it will be to a pristine condition in a month or so.

On the whole though, a beautiful stadium.

ANTIEMO

April 1st, 2010, 06:10 AM

did you see the inaugural match ?
if so, what was the impressions about Santos FC reserve squad?
Here they´re the greatest one team

buy

April 1st, 2010, 07:10 PM

did you see the inaugural match ?
if so, what was the impressions about Santos FC reserve squad?
Here they´re the greatest one team

Their best player was Neymar (sp?). He ran at the defense really well. I think the passing and team play from Chicago was a bit stronger and more difficult to defend against though.

That being said, great individual talent from Santos. I went to both games.

nyrmetros

April 5th, 2010, 04:01 AM

nyrmetros

April 5th, 2010, 04:06 AM

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/81/fullj.27bcb869edea33c085f27274fc398efd/27bcb869edea33c085f27274fc398efd-getty-97616171.jpg

Hansadyret

April 5th, 2010, 05:58 AM

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/81/fullj.27bcb869edea33c085f27274fc398efd/27bcb869edea33c085f27274fc398efd-getty-97616171.jpg

Beautiful stadium. They should build something similar for Liverpool i hope. Only with a bigger endstand and red seats of course.

BoulderGrad

April 5th, 2010, 09:32 AM

Beautiful stadium. They should build something similar for Liverpool i hope. Only with a bigger endstand and red seats of course.

That endstand is intentionally left open to allow for a view of downtown. The opposite end is nearly continuous with the rest of the upper bowl:

(grabbed this off the SSC thread for qwest field, thanks to rantanamo for posting it long ago)
http://img27.exs.cx/img27/4716/qwestfield825681158bq.jpg

Hansadyret

April 5th, 2010, 11:31 PM

^^Put something like this in one of the ends and you have a near a perfect football/soccer stadium:
http://www.nhlarenas.ch/Pics/diverses/Dortmund%20036.jpg

Tottenhams plans look very close to it.

weava

April 5th, 2010, 11:45 PM

^^Put something like this in one of the ends and you have a near a perfect football/soccer stadium:
http://www.nhlarenas.ch/Pics/diverses/Dortmund%20036.jpg

Tottenhams plans look very close to it.

maybe for soccer but not for football.

Hansadyret

April 6th, 2010, 12:02 AM

maybe for soccer but not for football.

Yes i know. I was talking about soccer or football as i call it. In am. football sideviews is more important because of the yardlines.

Mr. Fitz

April 6th, 2010, 12:04 AM

I think he means that NFL is played there too so it wouldn't be a good idea.

Hansadyret

April 6th, 2010, 12:21 AM

I think he means that NFL is played there too so it wouldn't be a good idea.

No not in Seattle but for Liverpool it would, if they ever get started on their new stadium. Maybe they need new owners again to make it happen.

koolio

April 6th, 2010, 02:57 AM

The plans are indeed to build a single tier Kop in the new Liverpool stadium but who knows ... don't think the stadium is close to reality at the moment anyways.

BoulderGrad

April 6th, 2010, 05:03 AM

ANTIEMO

April 6th, 2010, 05:38 AM

^^

that´s the feeling of the soccer

Melb_aviator

April 6th, 2010, 05:57 AM

Is it just me or does that look dangerous to anyone else? From a safety and evacuation perspective.

It is amazing the support the German League gets though.

ANTIEMO

April 6th, 2010, 05:01 PM

Is it just me or does that look dangerous to anyone else? From a safety and evacuation perspective.

It is amazing the support the German League gets though.

I dont think that's so dangerous, but htat seems to be so unconfortable.

That stadium was home to several games during de WC 2006 and no incidents were related.

bongo-anders

April 6th, 2010, 05:42 PM

But seats are installed during international games and capacity reduced to 10.500, so that is a bad argument.

KingmanIII

April 6th, 2010, 09:21 PM

That must be an interesting feeling... 20,000 people sitting behind you, all of them wanting you to f**k up...
Or, alternatively, 20K in front of you wanting you to f**k up a PK.

It's like making the game-winning FT in a hostile basketball arena, only better.

krudmonk

April 10th, 2010, 12:49 AM

So where does that money go then?
my team opening youth academy, as are others
http://www.sjearthquakes.com/academy
rosters expanding to allow teams to keep some of the best players they develop, sidestepping the draft
http://www.american11soccer.com/2010/04/mls-increases-roster-size-to-26-to.html
allowing 3 designated players per team with each counting less toward the cap so the stars are not surrounded by scrubs
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/m-l-s-expands-designated-player-rule/

Hansadyret

April 10th, 2010, 01:17 AM

rosters expanding to allow teams to keep some of the best players they develop, sidestepping the draft

Good move.
Imagine Barcelona loosing Messi, Xavi, Iniesta in a draft. That would not encourage development of players.
What club in MLS is the best producer of young talent?

Wezza

April 10th, 2010, 04:35 AM

That must be an interesting feeling... 20,000 people sitting behind you, all of them wanting you to f**k up...

I can tell you now, none of those people are sitting. ;)

ryebreadraz

April 10th, 2010, 04:36 AM

Good move.
Imagine Barcelona loosing Messi, Xavi, Iniesta in a draft. That would not encourage development of players.
What club in MLS is the best producer of young talent?

Well, youth academies are a new thing for MLS so they're still adjusting rules to encourage the development while not favoring the clubs in regions that just produce more talent than others. It's a work in progress, but very different than Europe. Not better or worse, just different. Each system has its positives and negatives.

When it comes to producing young talent, New York has been damn good. They produced both Michael Bradley and Jozy Altidore. Los Angeles has been good lately, producing both of the last two Rookies of the Year.

MS20

April 10th, 2010, 10:43 AM

Is it just me or does that look dangerous to anyone else? From a safety and evacuation perspective.

It is amazing the support the German League gets though.

There are barriers strategically placed all over the terrace there so there is no landslide, if you will. You won't ever see the type of rushing towards the fence you might in South America (that is very dangerous) because the steel bars ensure that even if there was a slight issue, it would never evolve into anything big.

Also, German fans are organized and mannerly. They're too suave for it to be dangerous.

kuquito

April 11th, 2010, 05:42 PM

Not a big fan. The MLS should raise their standards

http://www.kansastravel.org/kansascitykansas/09communityamerica2.JPG[/QUOTE]

krudmonk

April 11th, 2010, 06:27 PM

Are you a big fan of reading the thread?

bigbossman

April 11th, 2010, 06:43 PM

my team opening youth academy, as are others
http://www.sjearthquakes.com/academy

Ok and how will that work then an MLS academy league?

rosters expanding to allow teams to keep some of the best players they develop, sidestepping the draft
http://www.american11soccer.com/2010/04/mls-increases-roster-size-to-26-to.html

expanding squads isn't a good thing, it's part of the problem we have over here.

and only get to keep some of the best players? Surely you should keep all (the ones you want to) because surely academies would be entirely locally sourced so say the best players from alabama would still join the draft?

allowing 3 designated players per team with each counting less toward the cap so the stars are not surrounded by scrubs
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/m-l-s-expands-designated-player-rule/

The designated player thing is weird, do stars really get people into stadiums over there?

SJAnfield

April 11th, 2010, 09:48 PM

The designated player thing is weird, do stars really get people into stadiums over there?

Yep. Its sad really.

nyrmetros

April 12th, 2010, 02:08 AM

I heard that the new Houston stadium is 1 vote away from happening.

MS20

April 12th, 2010, 12:42 PM

Do stars get people into stadiums over there (USA)?

What a silly question. It's like asking whether people would rather watch a Premier League match or a League Two match. Stars = better quality. Who doesn't want to watch a better quality match?

The designated player system is designed to get quality that otherwise would not be accessible because of the salary cap. Again, a daft question.

bigbossman

April 12th, 2010, 03:02 PM

What a silly question. It's like asking whether people would rather watch a Premier League match or a League Two match. Stars = better quality. Who doesn't want to watch a better quality match?

That's rubbish and shows your lack of understanding of the game of football and its culture.

Theo Walcott is a star but he is an average player, lest we forget Peter crouch...

Stars =/= better quality

Your example is shit because people don't pay to watch players specifically over here, they pay to watch teams and competitive or winning football. People would rather watch premier league matches because there are bigger teams and rivals in it, if all the "stars" left the premier league the crowds would hold no doubt about it. So no it's not like asking people if they would rather watch a league 1 or premier league match.

Norwich city is a case in point averaging the same crowds (24,000) in League 1 (third division) as they did in the premier league. Lest we forget the dutch league.

The designated player system is designed to get quality that otherwise would not be accessible because of the salary cap. Again, a daft question.

Not at all, if you can't get people into your stadiums without bending your own sustainability rules to encourage washed up old stars to your league then what future really does MLS have if it can't always attract stars.

MS20

April 12th, 2010, 04:49 PM

That's rubbish and shows your lack of understanding of the game of football and its culture.

Theo Walcott is a star but he is an average player, lest we forget Peter crouch...

Stars =/= better quality

Your example is shit because people don't pay to watch players specifically over here, they pay to watch teams and competitive or winning football. People would rather watch premier league matches because there are bigger teams and rivals in it, if all the "stars" left the premier league the crowds would hold no doubt about it. So no it's not like asking people if they would rather watch a league 1 or premier league match.

Norwich city is a case in point averaging the same crowds (24,000) in League 1 (third division) as they did in the premier league. Lest we forget the dutch league.

Not at all, if you can't get people into your stadiums without bending your own sustainability rules to encourage washed up old stars to your league then what future really does MLS have if it can't always attract stars.

Lol, what a good laugh, thanks for that Goonie.

Yeah, lets compare Arsenal, Spurs, or Norwich to Chicago Fire! Football is the national sport in England; it ranks anywhere between 5th-10th depending on who you ask in the States. Shooting out attendances in England, or how loyal fans are to clubs in League 1 isn't impressing anyone.

And, many of the people who support those clubs in the US are long time/recent fans of European clubs. So when a big name like say, Theirry Henry, gets mentioned, obviously people are going to be interested in attending (if they are already not).

I would much rather watch Beckham than some kid picked up from an American college. And these type of players improve the quality of the team, and the league, which helps to garner media attention, and bring further investment into the league.

Yeah, people don't pay to watch players specifically in England? No, you're right, they pay to watch a group of very good players. Take out those players, and you have a second rate team that faces relegation. Norwich is one thing, but I'm almost 100% sure that 80% of clubs in divisions 2-4 don't even sell out 70% of their stadium capacity. Why? Because they're not in the Premier League. What would get them in the Premier League? Good players, and a competitive team. English fans are loyal, but let's not be quick on the draw; they want to see their team play against the best, and you can't do that without quality players. So, indirectly speaking, they want exactly what I alluded to.

And also, stop saying "if you can't fill the stadiums"... I don't live in the US, or give one shit about the MLS. I'm European, but one that understands that for football to grow in regions where its not popular, it needs things like designated players.

Take your blinkers off Goonie.

sbutlik

April 12th, 2010, 05:33 PM

Robertson Stadium
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Los+Angeles+Galaxy+v+Houston+Dynamo+liKROwRey4cl.jpg
Union Home Opener
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/ea/fullj.a234b276596f8391cc1613bd9d40bc68/a234b276596f8391cc1613bd9d40bc68-getty-97759019dh2144_united_union.jpg
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/63/fullj.d14cc811376bc17fbcbca2c33373253e/d14cc811376bc17fbcbca2c33373253e-getty-97759019dh2154_united_union.jpg
The Wiz ballpark
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/a1/fullj.00f0025467e5f50fd9e01b7a97c3d9ac/00f0025467e5f50fd9e01b7a97c3d9ac-getty-97759021_nl019.jpg

soup or man

April 12th, 2010, 05:56 PM

I wish the Union will take a page of the Sounder's and wrap the upper seats in a tarp or something.

GunnerJacket

April 12th, 2010, 06:26 PM

I wish the Union will take a page of the Sounder's and wrap the upper seats in a tarp or something.While more attractive that would also be a waste of money considering they'll only be playing there for about half the season, then they move into their own 18k venue.

JYDA

April 12th, 2010, 06:26 PM

I wish the Union will take a page of the Sounder's and wrap the upper seats in a tarp or something.

No point. They've only got one more game there before their new stadium is finished

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Philly_Union_stadium.PNG

ElVoltageDR

April 12th, 2010, 06:40 PM

Yeah. It was nice seeing them draw ta great crowd. 34K if I'm not mistaken, which is pretty damn good. PPL Park is going to hold 18K right?

GunnerJacket

April 12th, 2010, 06:58 PM

No point. They've only got one more game there before their new stadium is finishedOnly one more home game?

Well, after checking the schedule I see you're right. Between now and the PPL opener on June 27 they'll play one home game and 7(!!!) road games! Yeouch! :bash:

massp88

April 12th, 2010, 07:12 PM

Lol, what a good laugh, thanks for that Goonie.

Yeah, lets compare Arsenal, Spurs, or Norwich to Chicago Fire! Football is the national sport in England; it ranks anywhere between 5th-10th depending on who you ask in the States. Shooting out attendances in England, or how loyal fans are to clubs in League 1 isn't impressing anyone.

And, many of the people who support those clubs in the US are long time/recent fans of European clubs. So when a big name like say, Theirry Henry, gets mentioned, obviously people are going to be interested in attending (if they are already not).

I would much rather watch Beckham than some kid picked up from an American college. And these type of players improve the quality of the team, and the league, which helps to garner media attention, and bring further investment into the league.

Yeah, people don't pay to watch players specifically in England? No, you're right, they pay to watch a group of very good players. Take out those players, and you have a second rate team that faces relegation. Norwich is one thing, but I'm almost 100% sure that 80% of clubs in divisions 2-4 don't even sell out 70% of their stadium capacity. Why? Because they're not in the Premier League. What would get them in the Premier League? Good players, and a competitive team. English fans are loyal, but let's not be quick on the draw; they want to see their team play against the best, and you can't do that without quality players. So, indirectly speaking, they want exactly what I alluded to.

And also, stop saying "if you can't fill the stadiums"... I don't live in the US, or give one shit about the MLS. I'm European, but one that understands that for football to grow in regions where its not popular, it needs things like designated players.

Take your blinkers off Goonie.

Unless you are posting actual stats, saying that teams in the lower divisions of England sell less than 70% of their tickets is a joke. Considering the size of England, both geographically and population wise, of course teams in lower divisions, regardless of stars, are going to have small attendances.

Besides, people who support a club, such as Arsenal, don't care of they have some great players, Fabregas, Walcott, Arshavin, etc. They will support the team. It's when they travel, other club's fans will want to see them. The same can be said for US sports. Hence why every NBA team was guaranteed a sellout thanks to Michael Jordan.

Look at London. It is smaller than NYC, but yet it still support 4 top flight clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and Fullham with great attendance.

SIC

April 13th, 2010, 12:07 AM

Not a big fan. The MLS should raise their standards

http://www.kansastravel.org/kansascitykansas/09communityamerica2.JPG[/QUOTE]

Oh hi.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/4514748407_48b6af7aac_o.jpg

kerouac1848

April 13th, 2010, 12:15 AM

Look at London. It is smaller than NYC, but yet it still support 4 top flight clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and Fullham with great attendance.

I agree with your post but I don't think the London/NYC comparison is necessarily a good one. First, London has only about 600,000 less people than New York, and anyway having over 7.5 million within in the city boundaries alone is still huge (way above anything else in the EU and rest of the US, excluding NYC).

More importantly, however, is that club football is the only really big thing over here (if comparing to the US) since Rugby crowds are tiny, cricket is essentially non-existent in a league format whilst no other team sport comes close. NY has 7 teams from 4 major sports (ok some venues are technically outside the city) which is arguably just as impressive as 5 PL clubs.

In my view given the lack of competition, my city should be able to support tons of football clubs. And thankfully it does.

Hansadyret

April 13th, 2010, 12:37 AM

Yeah. It was nice seeing them draw ta great crowd. 34K if I'm not mistaken, which is pretty damn good. PPL Park is going to hold 18K right?

Will 18K be enough for Philadelphia?

Hansadyret

April 13th, 2010, 12:42 AM

Oh hi.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/4514748407_48b6af7aac_o.jpg[/QUOTE]

That looks like a nice stadium. Roof all around creates a nice atmosphere.
Probably the second best new stadium in MLS after red bull arena? What will the capacity be?

Inferious

April 13th, 2010, 01:30 AM

Will 18K be enough for Philadelphia?

will have to wait for the first season to see if the 18k stadium can be filled. maybe after some time they could expand stadium if they sell out their games

hubemx

April 13th, 2010, 02:13 AM

weava

April 13th, 2010, 02:45 AM

I think the Union should have waited and keep playing in philly until they could get a downtown stadium. Chester it´s too far from Philly and i don´t think people like to drive that much to watch the game. Remember Dallas?

Kansas City is making the same mistake. I drove by the new stadium construction site this past weekend and they are already pouring concrete.

GunnerJacket

April 13th, 2010, 03:01 AM

I think the Union should have waited and keep playing in philly until they could get a downtown stadium. Chester it´s too far from Philly and i don´t think people like to drive that much to watch the game. Remember Dallas?If season and single game ticket sales are an indication Philly will surpass Dallas easily, as several of the Philly games are reportedly sold out. Plus Philly has arguably a more entrenched native soccer culture compared to Texas, as in a history and relationship with the game long before the modern influx of latin Americans. To say nothing of the very active Sons of Ben supporters club.

weava

April 13th, 2010, 03:09 AM

I agree with your post but I don't think the London/NYC comparison is necessarily a good one. First, London has only about 600,000 less people than New York, and anyway having over 7.5 million within in the city boundaries alone is still huge (way above anything else in the EU and rest of the US, excluding NYC).

More importantly, however, is that club football is the only really big thing over here (if comparing to the US) since Rugby crowds are tiny, cricket is essentially non-existent in a league format whilst no other team sport comes close. NY has 7 teams from 4 major sports (ok some venues are technically outside the city) which is arguably just as impressive as 5 PL clubs.

In my view given the lack of competition, my city should be able to support tons of football clubs. And thankfully it does.

7? I count 9 in the NYC Metro. Giants, Jets, Devils, Islanders,Rangers, Nets, Knickerbockers, Mets, Yankees

thicken

April 13th, 2010, 04:36 AM

eua just need more soccers fans

krudmonk

April 13th, 2010, 07:16 AM

eua just need more soccers fans
No, we need more soccer fans to support the home league. That's what the designated player rule will do. Beckham was aimed at non-soccer fans, but other names will target the snooty connoisseur.

SIC

April 13th, 2010, 07:59 AM

will have to wait for the first season to see if the 18k stadium can be filled. maybe after some time they could expand stadium if they sell out their games

Toronto already did, so I don't see why not.

Actually........stadiums like the ones in philly, dallas, bridgeview, rio tinto, Toronto and even crew stadium aren't that far away from looking like Red Bull Arena. Well not just like it, but in general. Roof all the way around, complete seating bowl.
They just need crowds big enough to justify the cost of filling in the ends, extending roof and building an upper deck all the way around.

SIC

April 13th, 2010, 08:12 AM

Oh and this came out. Renderings plus plans of PGE park in Portland.

http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/PGE-Park-Design-Commission-Set-04-06-2010.pdf

TonyAnderson

April 13th, 2010, 08:12 AM

Behold, the unveiling of the RSL 2009 Championship Banner.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4282/march20101015.jpg

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4868/march20101016.jpg
Photos by Lee Powell

By the way the game ended in a tie. 2-2 over the Sounders.

Real Salt Lake unveiling their MSL Championship banner on opening night at Rio Tinto stadium.

GunnerJacket

April 13th, 2010, 08:13 PM

Oh and this came out. Renderings plus plans of PGE park in Portland.

http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/PGE-Park-Design-Commission-Set-04-06-2010.pdfFrom what I understand the final design captures both interests of the local fans (open access to street from new stands) as well as the minimal costs to the owners. And supposedly the details will ensure a harmonious marriage between the old and new elements of the stadium.

That being said, the design fan and soccer fan in me is quite disappointed.
-I wish the new east stand was closer in size and form to, and actually connected to, the existing seating bowl. Are the club seats and groups seating sections (the voids within the new seating forms) that necessary?
-I also would rather have seen a 3-sided horseshoe rather than seeing only a couple rows provided at the one end. Seems a hollow gesture, that.
- At the least there should be some roofing to cover all the new seating to bring it more in line with the existing structure.

It will have a completely organic feel and I'm told that there remains the potential for expansion within this footprint, mainly by sacrificing the viewshed to/from the street. So while in my opinion this falls short of what could've been, there remains hope in what it could be.* Fans will make the biggest difference, though. If it's filled as they hope then the shortcomings will be quickly overlooked.

*= I wonder if they've truly explored a build-out potential for this site? My biggest lament of stadium renovations is their seeming ambivalence towards future expansion/renovation. In a near-perfect world they would already have the draft designs on hand that shows what the stadium could be at maximum capacity, so that every interim renovation remains part of a larger, comprehensive scheme. Might they someday get 30k here, or would they be forever held at 25k or lower?

Edit: Could the desire for preserving views into the stadium been accomplished through virtual means? Murals or video boards perhaps? I fear this accommodation may have compromised the site's ability to host a larger expansion down the line?

metros11

April 13th, 2010, 10:56 PM

I think the Union should have waited and keep playing in philly until they could get a downtown stadium. Chester it´s too far from Philly and i don´t think people like to drive that much to watch the game. Remember Dallas?

Frisco, with no public transportation and 30 miles from downtown Dallas, is a much different location than Chester, with access to public transport and only 13 miles away.

JYDA

April 13th, 2010, 11:04 PM

Great news in Houston. The Dynamo stadium cleared the final hurdle with council approval. The deal is done and the stadium can start construction.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100413-county-approves-dynamo-stadium-deal

nyrmetros

April 13th, 2010, 11:49 PM

Frisco, with no public transportation and 30 miles from downtown Dallas, is a much different location than Chester, with access to public transport and only 13 miles away.

Does the Philly subway system go that far ?

dl3000

April 13th, 2010, 11:53 PM

Does the Philly subway system go that far ?

Not subway but SEPTA regional rail does.

TheKorean

April 14th, 2010, 12:07 AM

Should have built it in Philly Sports Complex. Nothing but parking lots there for the most part. I heard they were gonna tear down the Spectrum.

nyrmetros

April 14th, 2010, 12:13 AM

Not subway but SEPTA regional rail does.

How much is the ride from 30th street station to Chester on the commuter rail ?

krudmonk

April 14th, 2010, 12:15 AM

SJAnfield

April 14th, 2010, 04:10 AM

Wow, and the revived Earthquakes are in only their third year! Anschutz and Leiweke can go die.

I'll drink to that! :cheers:

KingmanIII

April 14th, 2010, 04:19 AM

weava

April 14th, 2010, 06:52 AM

It's the right move for KC. The soccer fans are mostly from the Kansas side, plus Village West has become one of the area's premier shopping destinations.

They're creating a BRT line out there, anyway.

its called a "destination" for a reason, its not in the city. And its about to transition into a outlet mall because sales aren't what they projected.

SIC

April 14th, 2010, 08:57 AM

its called a "destination" for a reason, its not in the city. And its about to transition into a outlet mall because sales aren't what they projected.

Yeah, I guess the worst recession in 40 years sorta killed their sales.

Anyway, does Kansas city even have a downtown like Chicago, Toronto and Seattle do? I figure in middle American everyone is used to driving and it's not way out there like Frisco. So it should be ok.

GunnerJacket

April 14th, 2010, 06:04 PM

Anyway, does Kansas city even have a downtown like Chicago, Toronto and Seattle do?Few cities (none?) outside the northeast have a downtown like/as big as Chicago. But as to jump right to your question, KC is like many mid-sized metros in that they have an urban core but it's not densely populated or as active on a 24/7 basis. Thus, the value of an urban location is almost as speculative as a more suburban locale: They're both still dependent on adjacent future development and transportation improvements that will improve/sustain accessibility.

Frisco appears to be the most extreme of the exurban development plans and I'd hardly couch them alongside sites like Bridgeview (Chi) or Chester (Phi), since in Frisco they seemed more reliant on future growth and an evolution of character. Plus they probably overestimated the distance factor for their fan-base. KC, on the other hand, knows that an overwhelming amount of their fan base will remain within an hour of the new location, and the new facility apparently will feature a more fan friendly design than PHP to help entice fans. More accessible + nicer venue = projected better response.

One man's opinion, anyway. :cheers:

KingmanIII

April 14th, 2010, 06:09 PM

Yeah, I guess the worst recession in 40 years sorta killed their sales.

Anyway, does Kansas city even have a downtown like Chicago, Toronto and Seattle do? I figure in middle American everyone is used to driving and it's not way out there like Frisco. So it should be ok.
Just about every city with a considerable population has a downtown.

But no, our skyline isn't as tall as those cities you mentioned.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c211/Lollytime/KCMOweb.jpg

krudmonk

April 14th, 2010, 08:21 PM

When did Seattle jump into Chicago/Toronto territory? That's not a question of skyline, amenities or urban design, just size. A downtown location works well there as it would in any city, including KC.

weava

April 15th, 2010, 01:02 AM

Yeah, I guess the worst recession in 40 years sorta killed their sales.

Anyway, does Kansas city even have a downtown like Chicago, Toronto and Seattle do? I figure in middle American everyone is used to driving and it's not way out there like Frisco. So it should be ok.

Yes, KC has a downtown :bash: :bash: The addition of the Sprint Center and the power and light district in the last few years have created a pretty happening nightlife with 20,000-30,000 people attendening concerts, shows, ect and going to the bars on any given night downtown.

metros11

April 15th, 2010, 09:32 PM

Wow, and the revived Earthquakes are in only their third year! Anschutz and Leiweke can go die.

For what, keeping the league afloat while no one else wanted to? How is that stadium in SJ coming, haven't you received the green light on everything?

cubsfan

April 16th, 2010, 04:13 AM

When did Seattle jump into Chicago/Toronto territory?

When did Toronto jump into Chicago territory?

Topher51

April 16th, 2010, 05:37 PM

When did Toronto jump into Chicago territory?

Have you ever been to Toronto? It's a beautiful and clean city and it's downtown is just as big as Chicago's, not to mention, also on a big frickin' lake! As for a population comparison:
Toronto: City: 2,503,281, Metro: 5,113,149
Chicago: City: 2,853,114, Metro: 8,711,000

I'd say they are pretty fairly matched. Don't get me wrong, I love Chicago too.

JohnFlint1985

April 17th, 2010, 12:36 AM

Red Bull Arena -- Harrison, NJ

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4526902158_35b0f7a360_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4526902116_706c9af705_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4526902196_99650b7170_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4526902234_0824549448_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4526914528_055550a529_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4526283229_11ede5213d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4526930448_99d565d793_b.jpg

.D.

April 18th, 2010, 10:59 PM

why there isn't too many people going to the red bulls arena :(

JohnFlint1985

April 18th, 2010, 11:46 PM

why there isn't too many people going to the red bulls arena :(

there was no game at the time I was there.

cubsfan

April 19th, 2010, 01:14 AM

Have you ever been to Toronto? It's a beautiful and clean city and it's downtown is just as big as Chicago's.

You have got to be joking right?

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/rozwell08/4a1b8bae4f65.jpg

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/rozwell08/Chi.jpg

BoulderGrad

April 19th, 2010, 08:29 AM

Hey hey hey... Lets not turn this into a Toronto vs Chicago argument... You shouldn't be arguing your differences, you should be celebrating your similarities... Like both being home to an original 6 team that will never win a Stanley Cup.

krudmonk

April 19th, 2010, 09:07 AM

original 6
Haha, the world's phoniest fraternity...

cubsfan

April 20th, 2010, 02:08 AM

:DHey hey hey... Lets not turn this into a Toronto vs Chicago argument... You shouldn't be arguing your differences, you should be celebrating your similarities... Like both being home to an original 6 team that will never win a Stanley Cup.

No argument here, I just don't see how anybody can claim Toronto to be anywhere near the level of Chicago. If you take the CN tower out of the equation, you're left with Miami.

Also thanks for bringing up hockey, I forgot it was a sport. :D

KingmanIII

April 20th, 2010, 03:45 AM

:D

No argument here, I just don't see how anybody can claim Toronto to be anywhere near the level of Chicago. If you take the CN tower out of the equation, you're left with Miami.
Take out the CN Tower and you gain a better sense of appreciation for the rest of the skyline.

krudmonk

April 20th, 2010, 04:55 AM

Also thanks for bringing up hockey, I forgot it was a sport. :D
Well it moves too quickly for a baseball fan to see, so that's understandable.

SIC

April 20th, 2010, 12:35 PM

Few cities (none?) outside the northeast have a downtown like/as big as Chicago. But as to jump right to your question, KC is like many mid-sized metros in that they have an urban core but it's not densely populated or as active on a 24/7 basis. Thus, the value of an urban location is almost as speculative as a more suburban locale: They're both still dependent on adjacent future development and transportation improvements that will improve/sustain accessibility.

Frisco appears to be the most extreme of the exurban development plans and I'd hardly couch them alongside sites like Bridgeview (Chi) or Chester (Phi), since in Frisco they seemed more reliant on future growth and an evolution of character. Plus they probably overestimated the distance factor for their fan-base. KC, on the other hand, knows that an overwhelming amount of their fan base will remain within an hour of the new location, and the new facility apparently will feature a more fan friendly design than PHP to help entice fans. More accessible + nicer venue = projected better response.

One man's opinion, anyway. :cheers:

Yeah, perhaps I should have been clearer. I guess I meant to ask "does having a downtown stadium matter in a place like KC?". Bridgeview honestly isn't that bad of a location, it's right next to the city limits.

I read a great article, about how when stadiums were built in England and London specifically, they were built on the periphery of a growing city. So the city grew up around it. They couldn't afford prime real estate either. But the teams gave people who had just moved into the city, a sense of place. The same thing happened in Buenos Aires and Rio around the same time.

It happened in New York as well, the Polo Grounds wasn't built by Times Square. Neither was Ebbets field or even Yankee Stadium. Wrigley Field was surrounded by actual fields when it was 1st built.

So who knows, in 100 years Frisco might be an actual metropolis on its own and nobody will even remember when it was the middle of nowhere. Hell, it might take only 50 years.

I think the problem is that people, young people especially seem to think Rome or in this case the Football League was built in a day. It wasnt, in it's 14th year of existence, it was nowhere near the level of MLS or had the stadiums of MLS.
Neither did the NFL, MLB, NHL or the NBA. Arguably, before Bird and Magic and then Jordan increased popularity, the NBA was worse off than MLS is right now. That was just a generation ago, but now people take for granted that basketball is the second most popular sport in the world.