The irony still escapes you?

:ohno:

Anyway, before I was interrupted, here is the newest sss in the United States:

Winning Bidders to Turn Silverdome Into Soccer Stadium
by Aaron Smith
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

An unidentified Canadian real estate company was the winning bidder for the Silverdome, snatching it up for a mere fraction of its original value.

A Toronto-based family-owned company bid $583,000 for the under-used stadium on Monday, which is currently owned by the City of Pontiac, Mich., according to auctioneer Williams & Williams.

The company plans to refurbish the Silverdome into a stadium for men's Major League Soccer and women's professional soccer teams, said the auctioneer. While the stadium was the former home of the National Football League's Detroit Lions, it also played host to the World Cup in 1994, when Brazil beat Italy in a knuckle-biter that ended in a penalty shootout.

The auctioneer Williams & Williams, based in Tulsa, Okla., said it will not identify the buyer "until the final details are worked out and the sale closes."

"The Silverdome will now be in the hands of professionals who can devote their time to transform this high-profile property into a vital asset instead of enabling it to continue to languish as an empty facility," said Fred Leeb, the emergency financial planner for Pontiac, in a press release.

The sale of the Silverdome takes a large financial burden off the hard-hit city of Pontiac, which has fallen on hard times, with budget shortfalls and high unemployment. Earlier this year, GM announced it would close a truck plant, taking about 1,400 jobs from the city.

As a result, Leeb said, Pontiac could ill afford to continue paying $1.5 million in annual upkeep for the stadium. With a private owner, the property "will go back on the tax rolls," he explained.

The 80,000-seat Silverdome was the biggest stadium in the National Football League when it was built in 1975 for $55.7 million. The stadium, which sits on a 127-acre plot, is also the former home of the National Basketball Association's Detroit Pistons.

The stadium reached its football zenith in 1982 as the site of Super Bowl XVI, when San Francisco's 49ers beat the Cincinnati Bengals.

The Silverdome has also served as a music venue for some of the hottest acts in show business, including Michael Jackson, Madonna and Elvis. Another high profile visitor, Pope John Paul II, once delivered Mass from the field.

But the Silverdome's biggest event was Wrestle Mania III in 1987, when 93,000 fans packed into the stadium to watch Hulk Hogan body-slam Andre the Giant. That was the biggest turnout ever for an indoor sports event.

Despite its rich history, the stadium has seen little use since 2002, when the Lions concluded their last season there.

"We want to convert a major premier asset of the city - convert it from something that's been languishing into a new, vibrant marquee asset of the city," said Leeb, in an October interview.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yrHPGALAZWM/SuYTRWNe6rI/AAAAAAAABJs/wJJHlVthz7I/s400/Silverdome.jpg
Pontiac Silverdome (cap. 80,311), Pontiac, MI

There are some problems...

Development company sues to block sale of Silverdome

MIKE MARTINDALE
The Detroit News

Pontiac -- A development company that has sought to buy the Silverdome for two years has filed an injunction to block Monday's sale of the sports facility to a Canadian group.

The injunction filed Monday afternoon in Oakland Circuit Court was too late to stop the auction, according to Bloomfield Hills attorney H. Wallace Parker, who has headed the Silver Stallion Development Corporation. But it may be able to stop the sale of the Silverdome, which went for $583,000 Monday in a closed door auction between four top bidders.

"We believe we have strong grounds to challenge this sale," said Parker, whose group once offered $20 million for the Silverdome only to see negotiations break down over disputes over repair work and a required fee. "There are a lot of angry, upset people in Pontiac right now. And we think we can open this back up and have it done right."

Parker said he hoped to be before Oakland Circuit Judge Edward Sosnick on Wednesday but said at this point, the city is blocked from continuing forward until the matter is decided by Sosnick.

The complaint for injunction names as defendants: the city of Pontiac, Mayor Clarence Phillips, Emergency Financial Manager Fred Leeb and Williams & Williams Marketing. It alleges breach of contract and racial discrimination against Silver Stallion Development, which is described as a minority corporation.

What's the news on an ownership group in Michigan? Will the buyers also run the franchise (in whatever league) or just revamp the place for a different sport?

What's the news on an ownership group in Michigan? Will the buyers also run the franchise (in whatever league) or just revamp the place for a different sport?

Not much is known about the buyers intentions. The man in the press conference that mentioned soccer and MLS was Fred Leeb an employee of the city of Pontiac. He read a quote given to him by the buyers. Here is a link with a little more info:

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2009/11/16/news/local_news/doc4b01ae940a136436209657.txt

Well whoever is going to get that ball rolling, I hope they started by deflating the roof and growing some grass. It looks like the pressure-sustained type they have in Minneapolis and Vancouver (and formerly Indianapolis). I'm sure it's not as simple as folding up a tent, but I doubt serious demolition is required to open the place up. As it relates to weather, American soccer will likely always be spring-to-fall due to several other cold cities already in MLS.

EDIT: Nevermind, Wiki says the roof is supported by steel now. That could be costly.

They still might be able to take out the roof and the entire upper deck to try something like BC Place in Vancouver:

http://www.crocketteers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wc_vision_2011.jpg

The Silverdome seating is like this:

Lower Level: 42,082
Club Level-7,342
Upper Level-29,399
Private Suites-1,246

http://www.clarkcompanies.com/Site%20Revision/images/Large%20Project%20Photos/Pontiac%20Silverdome%20World%20Cup%2094.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/michigan/pontiac_silverdome2.jpg

http://www.williamsauction.com/silverdome/img/Large/3.jpg

Space looks tight on the touch lines.

but a remod could change that...

I'll believe this Silverdome news when I see it.

It's Canada, not the US, but as a MLS stadium with implications on US soccer stadiums, I'm going to include it here. Toronto FC will most likely add 1,200 seats for next season in a permanent stand above the north end of BMO Field, which is currently a beer garden. The beer garden will stay and the new stand will be built 9 feet above it. The plan, which costs $2 million, will be funded by TFC and just needs to be approved by the Exposition Board and City Council, both of whom are expected to approve it.

BMO Field is already getting grass put in for next season to replace the turf. The turf has already been removed and the playing surface is currently a big sand pit as they work to put the grass in.

Will the american football (soccer) system ever turn into like it is in the rest of the world?

If so the last placed team of the MLS would be relegated to USL-1 or the new NASL-league? And the winner of that league would play in the MLS next year.

no

^^ No chance the country is too large in terms of area (and population for that matter), and American sport is generally all about profit. It seems to me that Garber isn't trying to grow football but eventually grow money from his money tree (mls) for all his investors. If he was trying to grow the sport MLS and football in America would be structured very differently. A professional national league from scratch was a bad idea, talk about run before you can walk.

It seems to me that Garber isn't trying to grow football but eventually grow money from his money tree (mls) for all his investors. If he was trying to grow the sport MLS and football in America would be structured very differently. If he was trying to use MLS to grow money for investors he's not doing a great job of it. Only a few clubs are profiting and even as general entertainment venues they've hardly made windfall profits for the likes of AEG. Perhaps a generation from now that will be different, but right now the overarching goal is sustainability for MLS and all clubs, which remains a few years out of reach.

A professional national league from scratch was a bad idea, talk about run before you can walk.Unless I'm mistaken a D1 league was a requirement for hosting the World Cup in 1994. There were discussions of elevating USL but eventually the powers that be (ie: the investors) decided to start from scratch. Not only did this streamline ownership, brand and marketing issues (from their standpoint, anyway) but it allowed them to pursue the collective entity format MLS employs to date. And while this set up remains far from perfect it has allowed the fledgling league to share the early losses and control costs, leading to the relatively healthy state of the league we see today.

Part of that has to do with the owners/investors knowing they won't be facing relegation and a sudden drop in revenues, so I think it will be some time (if ever) before that becomes a discussion around here.

In the meantime USL and minor leagues will always have their struggles, since soccer isn't as popular here in the US as abroad. Someday...

If he was trying to use MLS to grow money for investors he's not doing a great job of it. Only a few clubs are profiting and even as general entertainment venues they've hardly made windfall profits for the likes of AEG. Perhaps a generation from now that will be different, but right now the overarching goal is sustainability for MLS and all clubs, which remains a few years out of reach.

In the long run MLS will make money, that's the point. It won't grow the sport, it will make money from it's strategically selected markets.

You grow the sport by having teams everywhere anywhere and let the "market" decide where teams will settle.

Unless I'm mistaken a D1 league was a requirement for hosting the World Cup in 1994.

I said National League. Most countries had professional football clubs before they had national leagues.

Your country is a continent, you should have regional leagues and a national playoff.

There were discussions of elevating USL but eventually the powers that be (ie: the investors) decided to start from scratch. Not only did this streamline ownership, brand and marketing issues (from their standpoint, anyway) but it allowed them to pursue the collective entity format MLS employs to date. And while this set up remains far from perfect it has allowed the fledgling league to share the early losses and control costs, leading to the relatively healthy state of the league we see today.

My problem is the USA is too large for a national league, not only in terms of growth (look at the history of all football leagues they began regionally, even your american sports leagues were confined to the north east/great lakes for many years).

Also in terms of the impact they can have on the game, I heard sean wheelock on BBC talking about his hopes that MLS will catch up with the Argentine and Brazilian leagues soon, then pass them. For me that is not desireable nor i'm sure is that the case for Argies and Brazilians, as it would just mean another league for their best players to be coaxed too.

We also could get an NBA/FIBA situation way ahead in the future, in that the MLS can get it to a level where the poorest team can pay the same as the richest teams in Europe (for the simple fact that all MLS markets are big), either forcing a European super league (which would make the NFL blush) or giving MLS the power to go against FIFA. As I said that's way in the future, but given the way your leagues are set up, one day in the future it could happen.

Your model is good in theory for making money, but for the good of the game FIFA really should put population/GDP limits on league sizes...

Part of that has to do with the owners/investors knowing they won't be facing relegation and a sudden drop in revenues, so I think it will be some time (if ever) before that becomes a discussion around here.

Obviously, but that's a given in Europe, if you get relegated revenue goes down. But as i said, your leagues are motivated by profit not sporting competition.

They say in Europe you must be mad to own a football club, because other than a select few you'll never make any money. If you had that culture it could happen.

It's only a problem because of the travel situation, relegation in a small country isn't as catastrophic financially.

In the meantime USL and minor leagues will always have their struggles, since soccer isn't as popular here in the US as abroad. Someday...

But surely these minor league teams only struggle because the of the huge geographical distances. From what i have seen the attendances aren't bad per se, and would be in a european country enough to sustain moderate wages for players, especially if you add in sponsorship etc

Leagues below USL operate regionally. If needed, a club could drop down to save on costs.

^^ I mean your top division should be regional too, like your college sports...

^^ I mean your top division should be regional too, like your college sports...
That would immediately destroy the credibility built over the past 14 seasons. You have to be national to register in minds, and even then it's not guaranteed.

Plus, if LA signs a Beckham then that does nothing to boost promotion in New York or Chicago or other eastern cities.

^^ I mean your top division should be regional too, like your college sports...

In a way it is, that's why we have an Eastern and a Western conference. But in reality in 2010 each team will play a home-and-home series with every other team in the league, like the rest of the world, so even though the conference setup will survive it will only be used to split the standings.

@ Krudmonk

tbf That isn't my concern, my concern is the integrity of sport not making money or credibility. A national american league in any sport is a threat to the integrity of that sport, in the money it can potentially generate and there in the power it can potentially weald over that sport. Like I said I don't want football to ever be in a situation where one league is more powerful than the game (no matter where), but that is totally the case with your big 3/4.

I read somewhere that MLS struggles because the cost of travel takes up a massive percentage, therefore surely if those travelling costs were quartered or halved then having less attractive opposition for home games would be nigated? Personally I don't see Seattle Sounders not selling out if they only played West coast teams or Toronto if they only played teams from the north east...

How many games are nationally televised anyway? By that i mean on non niche networks...

Surely if LA signs a Beckham the revenue sharing ensures that those teams would get an equal slice of the pie even if they don't play him...

In a way it is, that's why we have an Eastern and a Western conference. But in reality in 2010 each team will play a home-and-home series with every other team in the league, like the rest of the world, so even though the conference setup will survive it will only be used to split the standings.

you gonna have to help me out, home and home series? When do you play away?

Yeah that was my thinking, 50, 5 regional conferences (still sharing revenue), you don't play games outside your conference until the playoffs. It's the only viable way to get more coverage in your nation without going for promotion/relegation as far as I can see.

I thought it was incredibily odd that RSL were Eastern conference champions despite being firmly in the west of your nation and in the western conference...

^^ I mean your top division should be regional too, like your college sports...

that would not make since. There are over 150 colleges, hence the regional conference break downs. The MLS will top off at ne point like the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL have. The MLS is doing fine. The only reason MLS is growing so slowly profit wise is due to a still low lack in interest from The American Population, But it is growing.

^^ If you read what I said, I never had any problem with MLS growth, I have a problem with it turning out like the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL. The point of regionalising is to stop it FROM EVER turning into one of those leagues, thus protecting football from ever being dominated by a money hungry American league... nothing against american sport.

Atlanta WPS team has plans for an 8k stadium in Kennesaw.
How many women teams have their own stadium? Anyone know?

http://10shirt.worldsoccerreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AtlantaBeatKSUStadium.jpg

http://10shirt.worldsoccerreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AtlantaBeatStands.jpg

Hopefully it doesn't pave the way for an MLS team, since it's 25 miles from the downtown area. We don't need another Dallas.

^^ st louis athletica?

Atlanta WPS team has plans for an 8k stadium in Kennesaw.
How many women teams have their own stadium? Anyone know?

http://10shirt.worldsoccerreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AtlantaBeatKSUStadium.jpg

http://10shirt.worldsoccerreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AtlantaBeatStands.jpg

Hopefully it doesn't pave the way for an MLS team, since it's 25 miles from the downtown area. We don't need another Dallas.

what's the cost?

tbf That isn't my concern, my concern is the integrity of sport not making money or credibility. A national american league in any sport is a threat to the integrity of that sport, in the money it can potentially generate and there in the power it can potentially weald over that sport. Like I said I don't want football to ever be in a situation where one league is more powerful than the game (no matter where), but that is totally the case with your big 3/4.
Honestly, the English have no right to criticize us there. The Premier League already sailed on that ship. The gap is huge and will probably never close. Your pan-European super comp is more likely than MLS taking over the world.
I read somewhere that MLS struggles because the cost of travel takes up a massive percentage, therefore surely if those travelling costs were quartered or halved then having less attractive opposition for home games would be nigated? Personally I don't see Seattle Sounders not selling out if they only played West coast teams or Toronto if they only played teams from the north east...
Travel costs are a small factor. Every team needs control of its own venue which is geared for the game. Then the league will be together in a position to step up a level or two. The distance of a flight every few weeks is negligible. The Brasilian league was regional for the reason you suggest but that's no longer the case. If they can handle it, I'm pretty sure MLS can.
How many games are nationally televised anyway? By that i mean on non niche networks...
There's a game on every week on Telefutura and ESPN. The first channel is "free-to-air" as you say and the other is so ubiquitous in US homes that even Monday Night Football moved there.
Surely if LA signs a Beckham the revenue sharing ensures that those teams would get an equal slice of the pie even if they don't play him...
Uh, the promotion of Beckham in New York goes further than the Red Bulls being doled a check from the money received via a game staged elsewhere.

A national american league in any sport is a threat to the integrity of that sport, in the money it can potentially generate and there in the power it can potentially weald over that sport. Like I said I don't want football to ever be in a situation where one league is more powerful than the game (no matter where), but that is totally the case with your big 3/4.I think it's extreme to simplify this to a US-style league problem, or even just a greed problem. In order to lure talent you need to pay, and in order for your team or league to maximize fan appeal you'll have to find that balance between what you can pay, earn, etc. Arguably the current UEFA Champions League model is a higher form of greed than MLS as it concentrates the money, talent and exposure to a handful of teams, even if they are spread across several leagues. Now that economics have made top flight football a feast or famine adventure you'll likely see more clubs failing or draining sugar daddies, which is arguably worse for the sport. Bottom line, current economic forces are altering the operation of pro sports even if US had no pro soccer to speak of.

I read somewhere that MLS struggles because the cost of travel takes up a massive percentage, therefore surely if those travelling costs were quartered or halved then having less attractive opposition for home games would be nigated? Within the US, corporate flight costs are comparable whether you're flying 200 miles or 2,000 miles. Travel costs are only a sizable factor because the overall budgets are so low, comparably speaking. MLB teams play 81 away dates a year but can clearly afford it given their revenues. Similar story for NBA (41 road dates) and NHL (40 dates?).
Personally I don't see Seattle Sounders not selling out if they only played West coast teams or Toronto if they only played teams from the north east...Maybe it's just US mentality but it's unlikely they draw the same for what's perceived as a regional league. Even with the big four leagues you're mentioning, there are regionalized divisions but it's still a national league, with national telecasts and many inter-regional matches. Economy of scale in the US favors this model, at least according to broadcasters and advertisers. Purely local or regional coverage and sponsorship would not provide enough revenue, and based on minor league attendance figures it wouldn't draw the fans, build the stadiums, etc.

Again, how much of this is American mentality or simply the fact that soccer is already below the other major sports I can't say.

Surely if LA signs a Beckham the revenue sharing ensures that those teams would get an equal slice of the pie even if they don't play him...Unless I'm mistaken he's one of those special allotments per-team where the full revenue isn't shared evenly among the teams. At the least I can say that the revenue sharing isn't such that any MLS team could've landed him, but only one with a large enough local market.

I thought it was incredibily odd that RSL were Eastern conference champions despite being firmly in the west of your nation and in the western conference...You and everyone else, sir. You and everyone else.

Also in terms of the impact they can have on the game, I heard sean wheelock on BBC talking about his hopes that MLS will catch up with the Argentine and Brazilian leagues soon, then pass them. For me that is not desireable nor i'm sure is that the case for Argies and Brazilians, as it would just mean another league for their best players to be coaxed too.What's desirable for the Argentines isn't exactly the responsibility for US soccer though, is it? If for some strange reason MLS is able to muster all that talent from the Argentinian (or Brazilian, French...) League then shame on those national leagues and their fans for not raising their league to a broader level. In the meantime what you're describing is taking place right now, just substitute UEFA for MLS. Heck, Brazil's national team is seemingly playing more dates in Europe than in Brazil because all their best players play overseas.

Your model is good in theory for making money, but for the good of the game FIFA really should put population/GDP limits on league sizes...Okay. How about one that's currently below those limits for Germany, Italy and England? Would that be fair? I'm not trying to be snarky but merely pointing out the logistics are so difficult in this matter.

If anything I suspect you'll find the US' enormous size leads to some different animal that dilutes the impact of which you're afraid: Perhaps a 32 team league with divisional play and a character that's less appealing to other players. Maybe we'll harbor more local talent?!!!! ( :nuts: ) Regardless, simply capping the US because it's too big sounds xenophobic. If the game is healthy then the US will capitulate to world order, not the other way around.

But surely these minor league teams only struggle because the of the huge geographical distances. From what i have seen the attendances aren't bad per se, and would be in a european country enough to sustain moderate wages for players, especially if you add in sponsorship etcMany MLS players are resigned to working a second job in order to sustain desirable wages, thus quality players and fans won't flock to the league unless it's able to pay wages at least above national averages. Otherwise the players realize they'd be better off selling insurance or repairing cars. Or playing other sports.

Atlanta WPS team has plans for an 8k stadium in Kennesaw.
How many women teams have their own stadium? Anyone know?
As someone who grew up 12 miles south of Kennesaw I can only surmise this is a pipe dream or something that would also serve Kennesaw State University. I know the Beat are returning and north Atlanta is a hub for girls/youth soccer, but surely this would would be a rough venture for a league that is a cut below the WUSA. I'll scan for any more information, but the scuttle from my father who still lives in that area is that the vision remains skeptical.

Honestly, the English have no right to criticize us there. The Premier League already sailed on that ship. The gap is huge and will probably never close. Your pan-European super comp is more likely than MLS taking over the world.

I'm not the premier league... in fact i'm no premier league fan (just an increasingly disillusioned and bitter gooner) but what ship are you talking about?

The premier league isn't more powerful than la liga or even serie A or the bundesliga. The "top four" think they are and eventually it will go bust!

Personally i don't think a euro super league would be legal, or will ever happen without some major (rugby league style) damage done to the game.

Travel costs are a small factor. Every team needs control of its own venue which is geared for the game. Then the league will be together in a position to step up a level or two. The distance of a flight every few weeks is negligible. The Brasilian league was regional for the reason you suggest but that's no longer the case. If they can handle it, I'm pretty sure MLS can.

Yeah but with the exeption of Russia and Brazil what countries of your area (adding canada in) have a national second tier. I'm in no doubt the area of both of this countries hinders the strength of their leagues.

The brazilian league is still regional, they play the state leagues for the first third of the year, then they have the national league. The national league is heavily concentrated in the south east/south though, many parts of the country see no team in the national set up. And no doubt the cost of air travel in south america hinders south american football.

The brazilian league handles it, but what growth potential has the league shown or will ever show?

There's a game on every week on Telefutura and ESPN. The first channel is "free-to-air" as you say and the other is so ubiquitous in US homes that even Monday Night Football moved there.

Too many games on TV!

Uh, the promotion of Beckham in New York goes further than the Red Bulls being doled a check from the money received via a game staged elsewhere.

I know, i'm just saying you're blowing out of proportion the impact of New york missing out on their beckham extravaganza

I think it's extreme to simplify this to a US-style league problem, or even just a greed problem. In order to lure talent you need to pay, and in order for your team or league to maximize fan appeal you'll have to find that balance between what you can pay, earn, etc. Arguably the current UEFA Champions League model is a higher form of greed than MLS as it concentrates the money, talent and exposure to a handful of teams, even if they are spread across several leagues. Now that economics have made top flight football a feast or famine adventure you'll likely see more clubs failing or draining sugar daddies, which is arguably worse for the sport. Bottom line, current economic forces are altering the operation of pro sports even if US had no pro soccer to speak of.

The champions league is a joke, and tbf I don't care for it much anymore. But it was an EU creation (of sorts) that got out of control. By that I mean the EU gave the power to the clubs in the mid nineties (bosman etc), the clubs threatened all sorts, UEFA buckled and gave them this monstrosity.

But tbf at least the champions league isn't an official closed shop, that is any city in theory can win the champions league, only whoever MLS wants to play with can be "US/canadian Champion".

tbf i'd say sugar daddies are the lesser of two evils when we are talking about cartels. As much as i dislike them at least in theory they aren't motivated by exploitation of fans for profit.

The best model for sport, is revenue sharing through the pyramid, fan owned not-for-profit clubs (barcelona) and Home grown "from the academy" % restrictions on clubs. But the likelihood of that happening is about as likely as Malcolm Glazer caring about football.

No doubt governments will get involved in Europe (thank God), I know i've heard murmors of the EU giving UEFA abit more rope and MPs over here keep criticising the premier league!

Within the US, corporate flight costs are comparable whether you're flying 200 miles or 2,000 miles. Travel costs are only a sizable factor because the overall budgets are so low, comparably speaking. MLB teams play 81 away dates a year but can clearly afford it given their revenues. Similar story for NBA (41 road dates) and NHL (40 dates?).

That's my point, wouldn't it make more sense with those low budgets to just play regionally then?

Maybe it's just US mentality but it's unlikely they draw the same for what's perceived as a regional league. Even with the big four leagues you're mentioning, there are regionalized divisions but it's still a national league, with national telecasts and many inter-regional matches. Economy of scale in the US favors this model, at least according to broadcasters and advertisers. Purely local or regional coverage and sponsorship would not provide enough revenue, and based on minor league attendance figures it wouldn't draw the fans, build the stadiums, etc.

Isn't LA-Chivas or Seattle-Portland still the same nationally marketable game (relative to the sport of course) whether it is played in a national or regional league?

Again, how much of this is American mentality or simply the fact that soccer is already below the other major sports I can't say.

an american mentality then...

Unless I'm mistaken he's one of those special allotments per-team where the full revenue isn't shared evenly among the teams. At the least I can say that the revenue sharing isn't such that any MLS team could've landed him, but only one with a large enough local market.

shame on MLS then

You and everyone else, sir. You and everyone else.

What's desirable for the Argentines isn't exactly the responsibility for US soccer though, is it?

Of course not, but as a fan of the game I'd rather argentine football rose again than USA football grew. It may seem a bit "jobs for the boys" but Boca-River deserves the stars not New york-LA.

If for some strange reason MLS is able to muster all that talent from the Argentinian (or Brazilian, French...) League then shame on those national leagues and their fans for not raising their league to a broader level.

French? Shame on them? Argentina and Brazil can't compete with the states, Brazil maybe in the future when it's economy grows (considering the absolute nature of the popularity of football), but argentina with what 40 million people can't compete with a a nation of 300 million people (except on the pitch where for the most part population means nada).

In the meantime what you're describing is taking place right now, just substitute UEFA for MLS. Heck, Brazil's national team is seemingly playing more dates in Europe than in Brazil because all their best players play overseas.

Well UEFA is a union of FAs, MLS is a 16 team league but I see your point... what I am saying is that it wouldn't just be UEFA it would be MLS too, so what would they be left with for a domestic league, at least now they still have some talent left in their leagues.

Brazil's national team plays friendlies aroudn the world, it begs the question of the necessity of frendlies not why they are playing in Europe, they play all competitive games in south america.

Okay. How about one that's currently below those limits for Germany, Italy and England? Would that be fair?

Sounds fair to me

I'm not trying to be snarky but merely pointing out the logistics are so difficult in this matter.

tbf i didn't realise you were being until you said you were, as your comment seemed sensible to me.

Logistics wouldn't be difficult at all... lets just say you haven't thought about it, but on the face of it, it looks a nightmare.

If anything I suspect you'll find the US' enormous size leads to some different animal that dilutes the impact of which you're afraid: Perhaps a 32 team league with divisional play and a character that's less appealing to other players. Maybe we'll harbor more local talent?!!!! ( :nuts: ) Regardless, simply capping the US because it's too big sounds xenophobic. If the game is healthy then the US will capitulate to world order, not the other way around.

Money will always appeal, especially when agents are involved telling players what they don't need to hear!

We've seen the way your sports trample over their international contemporaries, it's about not giving an inch, so to speak. You may call it xenophobic I call it caging the beast and protecting the game from any possible future eventuality. I'm just looking long term here!

Many MLS players are resigned to working a second job in order to sustain desirable wages, thus quality players and fans won't flock to the league unless it's able to pay wages at least above national averages. Otherwise the players realize they'd be better off selling insurance or repairing cars. Or playing other sports.

Why wouldn't fans flock to the league based upon the wages the players aren't receiving?

tbf considering the amount of free time footballers have (over here anyway) would working a second job really impact that much on their lives?

But the key word is desirable, lets put it this way people put up with minimum wage, and i'd say the vast majority of people on it would jump at being paid it to play their favourite sport. An extreme point I know..

As someone who grew up 12 miles south of Kennesaw I can only surmise this is a pipe dream or something that would also serve Kennesaw State University. I know the Beat are returning and north Atlanta is a hub for girls/youth soccer, but surely this would would be a rough venture for a league that is a cut below the WUSA. I'll scan for any more information, but the scuttle from my father who still lives in that area is that the vision remains skeptical.

It's KSU's stadium, the Beat will play there and are more marketable though so it's branded for them in renderings. Rumor is that it's expandable to 22k if KSU adds football.

^^ If you read what I said, I never had any problem with MLS growth, I have a problem with it turning out like the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL. The point of regionalising is to stop it FROM EVER turning into one of those leagues, thus protecting football from ever being dominated by a money hungry American league... nothing against american sport.

What wrong with making money? The NFL is THE best ran sport league in the world and they dont have to sale logo space on their jerseys. It is the level of success every league hopes to achieve. If the MLS is trying to copy the NFL NBA NHL formula then they will succeed in the USA. Just continue to bring in those European teams to play us in the inter continental matches.

What wrong with making money? The NFL is THE best ran sport league in the world and they dont have to sale logo space on their jerseys. It is the level of success every league hopes to achieve. If the MLS is trying to copy the NFL NBA NHL formula then they will succeed in the USA. Just continue to bring in those European teams to play us in the inter continental matches.

We don't play European teams in intercontinental matches. We play them in friendly matches.

thats what i meant, just didn't type it.

I don't think the success of the sport in this country lies in exhibitions against plastic-magnet brands from Europe. If the key is beyond MLS, it's CONCACAF Champions League matches against Mexican giants. Those games actually mean something and the teams have genuine fans here.

What wrong with making money?

Nothing but that's not what sport is about... at least not over here!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jul/29/football.newsstory1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/may/17/championsleague.europeanfootball

The heritage of our sport is not-for-profit. Unfortunately being exploited at this moment in time.

The NFL is THE best ran sport league in the world

1. It's not hard to make money with a cartel exploiting the favourite sport of a country of 300 million people is it? Especially when those people don't see it as such. The NFL model probably wouldn't be legal in Europe.

2. What does best ran sport league mean? Different leagues have different aims, thus different leagues are run differently. If every league was trying to make profit for it's "owners" then the NFL could claim to be the best run, but in Europe a lot of leagues are all about the sport (no matter how money obsessed they seem).

and they dont have to sale logo space on their jerseys.

Lets put it this way, if Europe's sport of choice was American football (but just to watch) and we had a pan european gridiron league which could pay wages more than the NFL, then the NFL would sell space on their jerseys.

The points are

1. The NFL has no competition

2. In Europe each league and each club are competiting with each other on an open transfer market, the fans don't like it, but put up with it because winning is more important. The premier league won't abolish it because that £20 million man u or liverpool lose a season will put them at a disadvantage against the foreign leagues. It's basically a we will if you will situation and the leagues won't work together.

It is the level of success every AMERICAN league hopes to achieve.

Fixed.

If the MLS is trying to copy the NFL NBA NHL formula then they will succeed in the USA. Just continue to bring in those European teams to play us in the inter continental matches.

Happily for me, my team doesn't whore itself out to these emerging markets...

I do agree the league will succeed in the USA if it copied those leagues, but it's about the sport, not just about the league!

What is your team? As a fan over here, it is difficult to overcome both anti-soccer machismo and anti-MLS snobbery all at once. I don't foresee this league becoming the soulless giant that you dread within my lifetime. The goal is to become respectable on the global stage. With the prevalence of the game worldwide, it may not even be possible to dominate. There could easily be other "super" leagues across other continents. You cite precedent in other US sports, but only hockey and basketball have a real international presence and even they are below football in most other nations.

What is your team?

London's finest, The Arsenal!

As a fan over here, it is difficult to overcome both anti-soccer machismo and anti-MLS snobbery all at once.

I really don't get both.

I don't get the anti "soccer" stuff, especially the "gay" sport line. It seems to say more about the insecurity of the commenters than the sport itself. Over here if you don't like it, you don't speak about it. You get opinions when they are asked for, but I don't think i've ever read or seen a scathing criticism of American football, Basketball or Baseball over here, like I have for Football over there.

I don't get the Eurosnobbery either. These are the same people who complain about "parity" in European leagues but then they fund those leagues by watching them religiously and buying their merchandise. If ever there was an oxymoron. Over here you hear lots of stories of people moving to different places and adopting the local team, Malaga has I think 4,000 English season ticket holders, they support the local game, they don't whine that it's not english "quality" (I use the term quality loosely)

If I was FIFA I'd try and do something to make sure people support their local leagues first. I dunno some sort of NFL style blackouts policy or say no league can sell it's TV rights to another country for more than x% of that countries domestic rights. Say FMF, Premier league, La liga have to give x% of their american TV rights to the mls.

I don't foresee this league becoming the soulless giant that you dread within my lifetime.

What scale are you talking another 50-60 years?

The goal is to become respectable on the global stage. With the prevalence of the game worldwide, it may not even be possible to dominate. There could easily be other "super" leagues across other continents. You cite precedent in other US sports, but only hockey and basketball have a real international presence and even they are below football in most other nations.

Thinking about it my fear is a bit irrational, it would require the sport getting ahead of basketball and somewhere at the level of Baseball is for it ever hapen. But then again that all depends on if you stick to the revenue sharing model. If you let Seattle and LA go wild then who knows...

Whoops, once again I turn a few lines into a mini essay....

Nothing but that's not what sport is about... at least not over here!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jul/29/football.newsstory1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/may/17/championsleague.europeanfootball

The heritage of our sport is not-for-profit. Unfortunately being exploited at this moment in time.

http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/

1. It's not hard to make money with a cartel exploiting the favourite sport of a country of 300 million people is it? Especially when those people don't see it as such. The NFL model probably wouldn't be legal in Europe.

Name one country that has more than 1 top tier soccer league? Now name another country that supports true gridiron football (yes, when i say "true" Im excluding Canada's mutant 6 fingered arm growing out of its head version of gridiron football)? For those 2 reasons (rarity of a country having more than one league, and no other countries playing the sport), the NFL has a stranglehold on gridiron football that it does in this country.

2. What does best ran sport league mean? Different leagues have different aims, thus different leagues are run differently. If every league was trying to make profit for it's "owners" then the NFL could claim to be the best run, but in Europe a lot of leagues are all about the sport (no matter how money obsessed they seem).

Just a little smug. If people are paying to watch, and you're paying players to play, you've made your sport a business. If you turn a sport into a business, then it ceases to be "all about the sport."

Lets put it this way, if Europe's sport of choice was American football (but just to watch) and we had a pan european gridiron league which could pay wages more than the NFL, then the NFL would sell space on their jerseys.

K, so by that logic, the NHL should have jersey ads now because of the KHL, Swedish Elite League and German Super League. They don't because its just not a widely accepted form revenue generation over here.



2. In Europe each league and each club are competiting with each other on an open transfer market, the fans don't like it, but put up with it because winning is more important. The premier league won't abolish it because that £20 million man u or liverpool lose a season will put them at a disadvantage against the foreign leagues. It's basically a we will if you will situation and the leagues won't work together.

Kinda flies in the face of "we're all about the sport over here" thing doesnt it?

http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/

That's one team who are UNIQUE in American sport, they were grandfathered in, isn't it the case that the NFL now prohibits consortiums of "owners".

Our sport was founded with the expressed aim to be about community and not-for-profit. In many countries it still is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2006/dec/20/footballsforgottenmissionfo

Have american sports leagues ever had a mandatory minimum ticket price for instance? how many teams give free travel on public transport or club chartered coaches to matches? Is your sport mandated by law to be on free-to-air television?

Name one country that has more than 1 top tier soccer league?

eh? If you are trying to suggest that the premier league (and it's contemporaries) are cartels over their national football you are mistaken.

1. The premier league has what's known as relegation and promotion. That means that I can (with the right set up) form a team enter it into the lowest level and in theory play in the premier league. You win promotion on the pitch, the premier league can't ask that team to pay a ridiculous sum or deny them entry because they play in the wrong sort of town, stadium or have the same name as someone else.

2. The premier league subsidises football, (far less than it should) but it subsidises the lower leagues.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/aug/08/sport.comment1

Until 1992 the four professional league shared the revenue. But because the big clubs were losing out to the big foreign clubs they engineered a breakaway, supported by the FA. All clubs have to be members of the National FA (paying a fee) and County FA (paying a fee). The money these FAs get is distributed into the grass roots of the sport as does the money it makes from the FA cup and from doing well in the World cup/European Championships.

Arsenal play Barnet football club (League 2/4th tier) every summer. They don't have to they could go on a tour of Asia or the states, but they don't. Arsenal also play reserve and ladies fixtures are Barnet's stadium. Arsenal don't have to do this for Barnet but football is a community so they do!

Now tell me does the NFL pay the NCAA and High schools? Is there a secondary or tertiary league that players can play professionally in if they aren't good enough for the NFL? Is there a governing body whose expressed aim is to control and support the sport from the grass routes to the top that can force Dan snyder and Jerry Jones to comply?

Now name another country that supports true gridiron football (yes, when i say "true" Im excluding Canada's mutant 6 fingered arm growing out of its head version of gridiron football)? For those 2 reasons (rarity of a country having more than one league, and no other countries playing the sport), the NFL has a stranglehold on gridiron football that it does in this country.

1. Yes, but the problem is the NFL isn't an open organisation (it should be), it chooses the teams and their locations. Can a team from Odessa, Texas or Vallejo, California win the Super Bowl or even play in the NFL, HELL NO. Can a team from Nottingham, England or even Urziceni, Romania win the Champions league/European Cup (European super bowl), HELL YES!

The NFL puts teams in specifically vetted markets, teams move over stadium deals and to access more populace (money making) markets. The NFL doesn't care about the sport of American football per se, all it cares about is extorting as much money as possible from it's markets (Charity drives are token gestures) because it can. When football league in england began it could've too, but it chose the not-for-profit, expand and promote the game, give anyone who wants a team a team route.

2. Every country in Europe has more than one league (just because they are linear doesn't make them insignificant to fans). People in Newcastle are focused on the championship this season, not the premier league (of course they still watch the premier league but the champ has their focus). Do people in Omaha, Nebraska ignore the NFL because they have no team? Americans always whine about the level of parity currently displayed in European leagues. You hear the "I prefer parity" argument. Well most of us would prefer a team in our town that isn't resigned to going nowhere. If the premier league had the same aims as the NFL do you think they would've allowed Newcastle or Leeds to go down and Wigan and Burnley to come up?

3. Because of the size of your country you have more teams at the specific levels (enough to create leagues). In England we have the top four, who act like a cartel nowadays, if England (with 50 million) had 300 million people you can conceivably argue it would be a top 24 aka like your professional leagues. The next 16 or so teams act like triple A and are in similar sized markets, so on and so forth. The only difference is in theory these cartels are breakable in England, whereas in America as I said only select areas get to play with the big boys. I call it Sports Classism.

Just a little smug. If people are paying to watch, and you're paying players to play, you've made your sport a business. If you turn a sport into a business, then it ceases to be "all about the sport."

Lets look at your application of the word business. To you, it seems that the a business is an entity motivated solely by the pursuit of cold hard cash. Unfortunately for you and your "just a little smug" remark. You're wrong.

"A business (also called a company, enterprise or firm) is a legally recognised organisation designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers. ....The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Businesses can also be formed not-for-profit."

British Rail was a business. It was owned by the British government, and had the expressed aim to provide a first class railway service to the nation. During it's time, I don't think it ever made a profit, and the government poured untold sums into it (even though it was underfunded). People were paying to use the trains, the BR was paying the drivers to drive and conductors to conduct, but it was always all about the trains.

Applying that to football, the expressed aim is to provide a community/city/town with a football team to entertain and to inspire. People pay to watch the football, the football clubs pay the players to entertain the people, but it's still all about football any profit made is plowed back into the enterprise.

Lets put it this way Roman Abramovich didn't buy Chelsea to make a profit, he bought them to service his ego. You buy an NFL franchise if you want to make some wonga!

K, so by that logic, the NHL should have jersey ads now because of the KHL, Swedish Elite League and German Super League. They don't because its just not a widely accepted form revenue generation over here.

Erm no, weak example.

1. Can any of those leagues beat the wages on offer in the NHL? I'd guess no.

2. Sweden has 9 million people and Ice hockey is (just about) the number 2 sport there, Canada has 39 million people and Ice hockey is number One. German Super League scraping the barrel much?

3. If the Kontinental Hockey league (a multi national league) started poaching the best NHL stars then you'd bet your bottom dollar the NHL would look for all available ways to raise revenue. Why rock the boat when for the most part you are in a strong position.

4. Don't give me it's not accepted, firstly NASCAR, secondly what is a Nike swoosh or the Adidas insignia if not a sponsors logo! It's just not necessary and never has been. Until that day you can never judge how you guys would react to it.

Kinda flies in the face of "we're all about the sport over here" thing doesnt it?

No not at all, we've discussed the aim of a football club is to provide a team that entertains and inspires. In today's world many people are entertained by nothing more than winning, and unfortunately because of some uncontrollable circumstances* you need a lot of money to be able to do that. But the facts are most leagues still practice revenue sharing, players are given to national teams for free (England players get an appearance fee to play, but give it to charity), as well as other things. So yes it is still about the sport, you don't buy a football club to make money because the vast majority don't.

*in 1996 the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Jan- marc Bosman and the bosman rule was created which basically transferred almost all bargaining power from the clubs to the players. Before then no club had an obligation to sell a player (I say sell, it's just compensation for the club to agree to terminate the contract), so clubs didn't extort fans and provincial teams could win championships. This was all down to the fact that when a players contract was up in most countries (Spain excepted) the club kept hold of the players rights (in England a tribunal set a transfer fee). What Bosman did was created what you know as free agency, this meant that players could demand higher wages or they'd go elsewhere for nothing. Small clubs were forced to sell, and big clubs were forced to pay players ever increasing sums to keep them there. This rule also ended any nationality restrictions, for many years Italy banned foreigners in their league and UEFA in 1990s had a three foreigners rule. This also meant that clubs were not only vulnerable from bigger clubs domestically, but also internationally as clubs look everywhere for cheap deals. So naturally clubs are looking for every source of finance to be able to compete.

MLB teams play 81 away dates a year but can clearly afford it given their revenues. Similar story for NBA (41 road dates) and NHL (40 dates?).


The statement in bold is EXTREMELY misleading. MLB teams do play 81 away games. However, these are usually played in 3 game series (on average, sometimes 2 or 4 games) so they don't TRAVEL 81 times. If we take 3 games as the average series length, then MLB teams actually travel more like 27 times... and the number is probably even less than that since they might go from city A directly to city B before coming home, which means one less flight overall.

Sorry, I just couldn't let that one pass.

The statement in bold is EXTREMELY misleading. MLB teams do play 81 away games. However, these are usually played in 3 game series (on average, sometimes 2 or 4 games) so they don't TRAVEL 81 times. If we take 3 games as the average series length, then MLB teams actually travel more like 27 times... and the number is probably even less than that since they might go from city A directly to city B before coming home, which means one less flight overall.

Sorry, I just couldn't let that one pass.But you're reducing travel costs to simply the flights, neglecting to consider hotel, meal, transit and ancillary travel expenses. All paid for by the team. So while those 2-4 game series may indeed only involve one round trip flight, the club is still paying travel expenses for 30 (or so) people to stay in another city. Thus, 81 away dates that feature higher cost outlays than home dates.

Regarding this whole "US-style system vs. open enrollment system" debate, I think we have to accept there may be no singular correct answer and that what we're debating is more a matter of personal taste in the end. While Bossman's egalitarian spirit may indeed lie at the heart of many clubs, players, owners, etc, the truth is that top-flight sport is fully professional and as such the motives for those involved extend beyond the simplistic notion of "What's best for the sport." (See: FIFA/Ireland/handballs) But we all know this.

Perhaps more importantly, just as sport has evolved to this point it's surely set to evolve even further, so while we can lam-bast the notions Bossman is espousing we would be wise to recall the influence we as fans have on shaping these sports league we so dearly love. Such calls have surely influenced the decisions of some leagues to feature revenue sharing, spending caps, Bosman transfer rules, etc. Failure on our part to remind leagues, clubs, players and owners of the fairness imbued at the heart of sport and we may see our sporting passions become even more twisted: The BCS, the UEFA Champions League, sugar daddies dropping $1B on payrolls...

Bottom line - No single model is evil or perfect, all are subject to change and we as fans are ultimately empowered to shape how these leagues and sports evolve, after all they will follow where the fan interest lies. So if you find one model disenchanting, then by all means move on. But if the masses accept one model as the most appealing, then perhaps they're equally in the right.

Cheers.

Name one country that has more than 1 top tier soccer league?

The Bahamas
US Virgin Islands

Bigbossman, you make some good points but I still wonder how you can stomach supporting a club that rakes in record profits year after year while pocketing hefty transfer fees and charging some of the highest ticket prices anywhere. And it's not like you're winning trophies. To me, Arsenal is one of the clubs does not fit in with your philosophy. Not disagreeing with your points but just curious how you feel about it.

Bigbossman, you make some good points but I still wonder how you can stomach supporting a club that rakes in record profits year after year while pocketing hefty transfer fees and charging some of the highest ticket prices anywhere. And it's not like you're winning trophies. To me, Arsenal is one of the clubs does not fit in with your philosophy. Not disagreeing with your points but just curious how you feel about it.Mind if another Gooner opines? I'd say you're a bit off base with your premise:

- Arsenal's profits are largely going into the club right now, paying off debts from the ground move and shoring up the cash position of the club to ensure they don't achieve the level of debt risk seen at places like ManU and Liverpool. So while they're making "record profits," the margin is still comparably average and their financial status makes them about the most sound club going. To wit...

- The ticket prices have remained pretty steady the past several years while others around England/ Europe have increased dramatically. The club also has aspirations of keeping them as low as possible now that most of the costs of the ground move have been managed. More importantly the fan base to date has been okay with the costs. At the least, they're still selling out the Grove.

- Lastly, the foremost reason Arsenal are not winning trophies has more to do with the presence/prowess of Chelsea and ManU than with any failings at Arsenal. Since it's unrealistic for any club not endowed with untold wealth to expect trophies every year I'd say Arsenal have done exceptionally well with what they have, are a respectfully run club with sound characters across the board and thus I'm increasingly proud of my support of the club despite the lack of recent silverware.

Yes, they're a big club with plenty of resources, but they're using them wisely and not bludgeoning the global consumer to death with their brand. That's saying a lot compared to their peers.

Bigbossman, you make some good points but I still wonder how you can stomach supporting a club that rakes in record profits year after year while pocketing hefty transfer fees and charging some of the highest ticket prices anywhere. And it's not like you're winning trophies. To me, Arsenal is one of the clubs does not fit in with your philosophy. Not disagreeing with your points but just curious how you feel about it.

It's either I'm a hypocrite or I just can't help it. Arsenal's in my blood, if you cut me I bleed red and white blood cells!

On ticket prices
Lets put it this way, this is something that needs to come from higher up. By that I mean we should have prices regulated by the FA. Behind the goal is £10 on the side is £30 etc, no matter what ground. The problem is Disneyland has a capacity that trumps everyone else so to compete clubs feel they have to exploit where the can. I blame the players, I blame the champions league. I don't . I'd probably take a £5 ticket and mid table football, but I'm probably a loan voice amongst the hooray henrys.

Here is a post I made in the Emirates stadium thread

What annoys me about it is the club are consciously trying to stifle spontanious fan support and turn the club into a corporate family holiday. Money is the only thing they care about. I look back with envy at the old atmosphere in football and especially highbury.

I have no problem with the corporates and the families I just feel that clubs should (be forced to) market to all types of fans not just those with money. I mean have sections for each type of fans.

The reality is that Premier league football clubs don't have enough price points, Arsenal are under pricing the good seats and over pricing the bad seats. What I mean is that in Germany or Italy say the cheap seats/terraces are offset by the price of the good seats. Arsenal's standard ticket range is ludicrous (http://www.arsenal.com/membership/buy-tickets).

The most expensive (non corporate seat) in the prem is way cheaper than in most foreign leagues, but then our cheapest tickets are way more expensive. They only do this because these clubs are in such demand anyway.

If i was being perfectly honest I'd say that i'm embarrassed by a lot of our fans especially as they seem to give us this fluffy reputation which makes us an easy target for mockers. Living in London and having a load of Millwall, West ham and yiddo friends you get it, if you know what I mean.

All this is probably why i'd advocate a return of terracing and more stringent and sensible league wide pricing policies.

On the record profits
I think the shareholders have agreed for a number of years not to take a dividend, but all the money is ploughed back into the club. The stadium situation was a big mistake, the design is joke, the capacity is too small, the seats are too "comfortable", the stewards are too big for their boots, we should never have tried to become property developers. It's just all one big shambles. I blame the players and agents over the clubs.

On winning trophies
I am a bit disillusioned with the club after the Chelsea result. When we win I don't care where the players come from, but when we lose they are foreign mercenaries (before you say I'm xenophobic my parents aren't from the UK or even Europe). I could probably more put up with this shit (and tbf it's not shit, I've just been spoilt) if there were some local lads in the team, academy products, or just Brits! I mean the excitement and hope when Theo, Kieran Gibbs, Jack Wilshere or Aaron Ramsey play is massive. I know for a fact if Fabregas was English he'd be far more loved by fans. I really do support 6+5 by Blatter, I support sorting out the academy system, anything to get the identity factor back. I think I could put up with losing far more if it was a team full of Londoners.

We should've won the league in 2006-07, but for an Eduardo leg break, a Clichy slip and a 2 goal lead let slip away at brum I think we would've. The FA cup would be nice, I hate the champions league and think it's a joke so right now I could care less about winning it (although come may if we're in the final...), the premier league is the holy grail and I understand it's hard to win especially with Chelsea in the way.

One thing I do know when we next win the league or even a trophy there will be the mother of all parties. Never give up hope and all that jazz!

On me supporting Arsenal being an oxymoron.
Of course I don't like the way the club seems to be run but I haven't given up hope, there is still a soul there. We still play in the heart of the community and we still have a proper fan base. The area Arsenal play in is a grade A shit hole (perfect football territory). Despite it's reputation, inner north/north east London Camden, through Islington over to Hackney is a dump but still Arsenal country, going round there I still get the vibe that football brings, the fact that it is way more than just a game, it's about identity and belonging and I still get that vibe with my friends and as long as that still exists I'll always be a Gooner.

Regarding this whole "US-style system vs. open enrollment system" debate, I think we have to accept there may be no singular correct answer and that what we're debating is more a matter of personal taste in the end. While Bossman's egalitarian spirit may indeed lie at the heart of many clubs, players, owners, etc, the truth is that top-flight sport is fully professional and as such the motives for those involved extend beyond the simplistic notion of "What's best for the sport." (See: FIFA/Ireland/handballs) But we all know this.

Of course, the players, agents and greedy owners are all about money, how to make money. Look a Berlusconi he runs milan as a loss leader for his political career!

Lets put it this way, bad eggs have always existed in football. There has always been money under tables and people exploiting the game. The directors of clubs left stadiums to rot and caged fans in like animals while they no doubt declared deflated attendances and pocketed tax free cash on the side. If football was pure then that Tottenham c*nt who exploited the loophole and floated his club wouldn't have, and English football would still be not-for-profit. If football was pure the president of so called not-for-profit Real Madrid wouldn't be proposing European super leagues, and saying he didn't buy Ronaldo to play against Getafe. The guy is a crook!

I'm not niave, I have egalitarian principles because I believe it's the right thing to do. I just don't see why someone should profit off of a social enterprise.

tbf I agree with FIFA, Ireland tough luck and shut up.

Perhaps more importantly, just as sport has evolved to this point it's surely set to evolve even further, so while we can lam-bast the notions Bossman is espousing we would be wise to recall the influence we as fans have on shaping these sports league we so dearly love. Such calls have surely influenced the decisions of some leagues to feature revenue sharing, spending caps, Bosman transfer rules, etc. Failure on our part to remind leagues, clubs, players and owners of the fairness imbued at the heart of sport and we may see our sporting passions become even more twisted: The BCS, the UEFA Champions League, sugar daddies dropping $1B on payrolls...

In Europe we have organisations like Eurostand, Stand up sit down and No to modern football. I don't think we'll give up with out a fight, we want our game back!

Bottom line - No single model is evil or perfect,

Well my mum always said that "the love of money is the route of all evil". Make of that what you will.

all are subject to change and we as fans are ultimately empowered to shape how these leagues and sports evolve, after all they will follow where the fan interest lies. So if you find one model disenchanting, then by all means move on. But if the masses accept one model as the most appealing, then perhaps they're equally in the right.

Cheers.

I disagree with that, it's not about what's appealing it's about what we think sport is about. Is it just another profit making business where we (the fans) are paying for a service and they (the clubs) deliver it? Or is it about bonding communities, building social bridges and inspiring the youth of today?

Given that I'm not a member, what are the ticket prices at the Emirates? Listening to 606 over the weekend, one gooner was saying how he was told to be quiet and watch the game by another supporter! Unbelievable!

Given that I'm not a member, what are the ticket prices at the Emirates?

Cheapest category B ticket is £32.50. Category A (West ham, yids, chelsea, man u and liverpool) £47. Then of course you add in travel, food and drink which is fucking expensive, especially in that stadium.

Membership just gets you first refusal, no discounts as far as I'm aware. I've never been a member.

Listening to 606 over the weekend, one gooner was saying how he was told to be quiet and watch the game by another supporter! Unbelievable!

Yeah you get that, years ago that happened to me in a carling cup game, a women told us to sit down and be quiet. The stewards love making you sit down too over there.

THis is how much the club cares about us

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/arsenal/article2696597.ece

I really do support 6+5 by Blatter, I support sorting out the academy system, anything to get the identity factor back. I think I could put up with losing far more if it was a team full of LondonersI think standards for financial prudence is far more important and will lend itself to curtailing the inflationary spending seen today, but we're digressing.
I'm not niave, I have egalitarian principles because I believe it's the right thing to do. I just don't see why someone should profit off of a social enterprise.But are they social enterprises in the sense you're referring? We know the answer to this one.
Well my mum always said that "the love of money is the route of all evil". Make of that what you will.Agreed, but there's also the difference between being greedy and earning a living so that you can do what you actually value. Presumably many clubs could charge higher prices still, or pay lower wages, etc, and make greater margins of return. Similarly many players are interested in money but not for the sake of greed but merely because it's security to pursue their true ambitions, which may be perfectly noble. Thus, while the quote is correct we have to be cautious in whom we're accusing of acting for "the love of money" versus simply making the best of their situation. Different things, there.
I disagree with that, it's not about what's appealing it's about what we think sport is about. Is it just another profit making business where we (the fans) are paying for a service and they (the clubs) deliver it? Or is it about bonding communities, building social bridges and inspiring the youth of today?By appealing I mean taking such virtues into account and then following the option they most agree with. You're simply laying out different criteria by which you judge something as appealing or not, in this case applying a layer of social consciousness. If people (consumers) don't weigh those criteria as highly that's their prerogative, and either way the sport would most likely follow the crowds to where they'll garner the most support and/or money. That's all I'm saying.

This is one (but only one of many) reason college sports are considered so appealing in the US, because in the absence of salaries pure greed is somewhat removed from the list the athletes' motivations, and thus fans feel their investments of time, support and money are in fact going to the program and not simply to some mercenary. Again, there's more to this but you get the idea, so maybe what you're looking for is a broader application of the amateur game to support?

While this is a very interesting discussion going on here, I think your efforts are being spent in the wrong forum. Is this not the place to discuss US Stadiums?

I think standards for financial prudence is far more important and will lend itself to curtailing the inflationary spending seen today, but we're digressing.

What they are proposing is bullshit though, cap spending at 60% of revenue, but revenue isn't fucking equal. Prize money in team sport makes no sense, in individual sport the prize money doesn't help you win some more, in Football it does. If they can sort that out then i'd be for it.

There are lots of things they can do, things that I can't be bothered to list

But are they social enterprises in the sense you're referring? We know the answer to this one.

Just because person A doesn't see it as a social enterprise doesn't mean that person B, C or D doesn't. Arsenal may just be a business to Stan Kroenke but to me and many other people it's something we are!

anyway how many clubs actually make a profit? And how many of those that do are member owned (every bundesliga team did last season)?

Agreed, but there's also the difference between being greedy and earning a living so that you can do what you actually value. Presumably many clubs could charge higher prices still, or pay lower wages, etc,

Wait what? you said no model is evil, I gave you a quote about greed. Thus I am saying that any model which promotes exploitation and exortortion (erm cartels) is "evil". So what has that got do with palyers earning a living. I have no problem with them earning a fair percentage of football makes, because they are one of the main drivers (I'd say supporters are the biggest driver) but when footballers start demanding stupid wages etc that's when I have hate.

Well they have been raising the prices, look at what they have gone from and to. They only began to freeze/lower them this season as a PR move. The board meeting probably went like this

"We've been overpricing them for 15 years but those mugs have still been coming, if we freeze these prices they'll think we're saints!"

They can't put down the wages because it would take them all to agree to it, and no one will. They'd have to make it legal and if they do that it opens up everything to NFL style collective bargaining which then puts in a possibility of stikes something which (as far as I'm aware) has never happened in Sport over here (Thank God).

and make greater margins of return.

Like back in the day when we had the maximum wage.

Similarly many players are interested in money but not for the sake of greed but merely because it's security to pursue their true ambitions, which may be perfectly noble.

That's bullshit, you sound so you know. If you are a football you are priviledged to [play the game you love (or in assou-ekotos case hate) for a wage well beyond the reasonable man's wages. So what the fuck security should these guys have, they are living the fucking dream. If they aren't intelligent enough to make provisions for if it doesn't work out then it's their own fucking fault. Well their's and the clubs who sell them the dreams, although it's not like they die if they're let go they're able body humans who can do a normal fucking days work, and anyway the PFA (and it's contemporaries around the world no doubt) help out the lots children of thee game.

Thus, while the quote is correct we have to be cautious in whom we're accusing of acting for "the love of money" versus simply making the best of their situation. Different things, there.

I'm accusing the greedy players (Ashley cole etc) the agents and anyone (Glazer, Hicks, Gillette, Kroenke, theme lol) who's trying to profit from the game without contributing.

Over there it seems you see sporstars as giants and deserving of their recompense. Over here we think that sportstars are privileged and should accept what their given and if they don't they're a mercenary.

By appealing I mean taking such virtues into account and then following the option they most agree with. You're simply laying out different criteria by which you judge something as appealing or not, in this case applying a layer of social consciousness. If people (consumers) don't weigh those criteria as highly that's their prerogative, and either way the sport would most likely follow the crowds to where they'll garner the most support and/or money. That's all I'm saying.

I have no idea what you are talking about, we were discussing what is the right model for sport an organic model based upon sport with the business side worked in, or a business model based upon profit with the sport worked in. Given the nature of what sport is about I am saying the organic model is best, but you are saying what is best is what the fans decide.

That's bullshit though, if I asked you how much tax you should pay, you'd no doubt say "as little as possible" as would a lot of people. But then would that be the best thing for a country having people pay less tax, lets ask California...

Oh and one more thing... If you call a football fan in Europe a consumer you'd get punched in the face. WE are supporters, football clubs have a monopoly of our hearts. We don't choose a team, we just are and we can't change. So them exploiting us is dispicable, if were consumers you couldn;t because we'd walk!

This is one (but only one of many) reason college sports are considered so appealing in the US, because in the absence of salaries pure greed is somewhat removed from the list the athletes' motivations, and thus fans feel their investments of time, support and money are in fact going to the program and not simply to some mercenary. Again, there's more to this but you get the idea, so maybe what you're looking for is a broader application of the amateur game to support?

I don't buy they college sports purity thing anymore, having seen it (I watch it on ESPN UK). It seems no more pure than than football in Europe. The absence of saleries is a nice smoke screen when these guys are getting paid with a scholarship because education isn't free (it is over here for the most part, even Oxford and Cambridge), a lot of them are auditioning for the NFL, and no doubt a lot of them are narcasistic egotist. How many of them would still play if it was 1 man and his dog who turned up to watch, ESPN didn't cover it or there was no scholarship?

I believe college sports in america are "pure" because people are supporting an ideology rather than a sports franchise (like in Europe). That is you went to UCONN you support the huskies, you went to Michigan you support the Wolverines etc etc. Same as over here, you're from Liverpool you're Red or Blue, you'd never support the mancs!

While this is a very interesting discussion going on here, I think your efforts are being spent in the wrong forum. Is this not the place to discuss US Stadiums?

you're right I apologise!

Myself, as well. Sorry for the threadjacking. :cheers:

So Houston Stadium? Earthquakes Stadium? Wizards Stadium? PGE Park renovations? Any traction from the Revs or United for their new stadiums?

I don't think the success of the sport in this country lies in exhibitions against plastic-magnet brands from Europe. If the key is beyond MLS, it's CONCACAF Champions League matches against Mexican giants. Those games actually mean something and the teams have genuine fans here.

Tell that to the stadium owners that filled up 60/70K+ in the middle of summer. :)

21 july 2009
Chelsea-Inter (Rose Bowl) 81,224 spec.

24 july 2009
Chelsea-Milan (M&T Bank Stadium) 71,203 spec.

26 july 2009
Chelsea-America (Cowboys Stadium) 57,229 spec.

1 august 2009
LA Galaxy-FC Barcelona (Rose Bowl) 93,137 spec.

5 august 2009
Seattle Sounders-FC Barcelona (Qwest Field) 66,861 spec.
9 august 2009
DC United-Real Madrid (FedEx Field) 72,368 spec

As you see, more people come to watch european clubs than mexican clubs. Even when the mexican club plays near Mexico...

Tell that to the stadium owners that filled up 60/70K+ in the middle of summer. :)

21 july 2009
Chelsea-Inter (Rose Bowl) 81,224 spec.

24 july 2009
Chelsea-Milan (M&T Bank Stadium) 71,203 spec.

26 july 2009
Chelsea-America (Cowboys Stadium) 57,229 spec.

1 august 2009
LA Galaxy-FC Barcelona (Rose Bowl) 93,137 spec.

5 august 2009
Seattle Sounders-FC Barcelona (Qwest Field) 66,861 spec.
9 august 2009
DC United-Real Madrid (FedEx Field) 72,368 spec

As you see, more people come to watch european clubs than mexican clubs. Even when the mexican club plays near Mexico...
Those games will be packed with anyone. Mexican fans will go to see their team, not just a popular team.

Some new pics of Red Bull Arena have surfaced.

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs111.snc3/15858_208028442717_527307717_4044883_825279_n.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15858_208030472717_527307717_4044923_6801969_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs111.snc3/15858_208026947717_527307717_4044874_2755745_n.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15858_208029557717_527307717_4044914_2906942_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15858_208029572717_527307717_4044915_6041382_n.jpg

Tell that to the stadium owners that filled up 60/70K+ in the middle of summer. :)

21 july 2009
Chelsea-Inter (Rose Bowl) 81,224 spec.

24 july 2009
Chelsea-Milan (M&T Bank Stadium) 71,203 spec.

26 july 2009
Chelsea-America (Cowboys Stadium) 57,229 spec.

1 august 2009
LA Galaxy-FC Barcelona (Rose Bowl) 93,137 spec.

5 august 2009
Seattle Sounders-FC Barcelona (Qwest Field) 66,861 spec.
9 august 2009
DC United-Real Madrid (FedEx Field) 72,368 spec

As you see, more people come to watch european clubs than mexican clubs. Even when the mexican club plays near Mexico...

It wasn't the fact that it was a Mexican club, it was the fact that it was played in Dallas. Dallasbrink is going to stroke out now, but Dallas is a crappy choice for a game. It just happens to have a nice venue.

Some new pics of Red Bull Arena have surfaced.

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs111.snc3/15858_208028442717_527307717_4044883_825279_n.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15858_208030472717_527307717_4044923_6801969_n.jpg

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs111.snc3/15858_208026947717_527307717_4044874_2755745_n.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15858_208029557717_527307717_4044914_2906942_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15858_208029572717_527307717_4044915_6041382_n.jpg

interesting.

only 25,000 capacity is what i read. how come it wasnt built bigger especially with the success Portland, Toronto and LA are having? i know the red bulls draw flies, but with a new stadium and a better team i think 25,000 is to small.

only 25,000 capacity is what i read. how come it wasnt built bigger especially with the success Portland, Toronto and LA are having? i know the red bulls draw flies, but with a new stadium and a better team i think 25,000 is to small.

That would be Seattle, not Portland.

LA had a nice spike in attendance when Beckham first came along, but even with him around now, they still only draw 20,000-21,000 fans in a 27,000 seat stadium.

Also, Seattle and Toronto are very new franchises who started with avid fan bases. New York has had a franchise since the league started and has never been able to get much above 15,000 people per game. They might get a bit of a jump with a new stadium, but its not magically going to pop up to 30,000 people. Part of the attraction of building these smaller stadiums is that feeling of packing the house (that, and a higher demand for tickets raises prices). That's pretty hard to do in this league with a 30,000 or 35,000 seat stadium.

Red Bull Stadium looks really nice.
To bad about the Red Bull logo though...

I think the Red Bull Stadium out of all the new soccer stadiums in the United States is the best one. This new Red Bull Stadium is a STADIUM. Even, proportional. symmetrical. I dont like it when they don't have stands behind the goal because they are thinking of having concerts there. For example Pizza Hut Park.

In other words. The new Red Bull Stadium does not look like an MLS stadium. Its very more European like.

I think the Red Bull Stadium out of all the new soccer stadiums in the United States is the best one.

I think so too. NYRB is offering a pretty cool 4 game package for the holidays, and 2nd tier midfield seats go for like <150$

You get to go to the opening game of the new stadium (against Chicago, which should draw a nice audience), and then choose the other 3 when the game schedule comes out. I mean, opening game + LA galaxy game + Seattle game + ??? is a pretty good deal right?

I think i'll go.

I think so too. NYRB is offering a pretty cool 4 game package for the holidays, and 2nd tier midfield seats go for like <150$

You get to go to the opening game of the new stadium (against Chicago, which should draw a nice audience), and then choose the other 3 when the game schedule comes out. I mean, opening game + LA galaxy game + Seattle game + ??? is a pretty good deal right?

I think i'll go.

It is a good deal. I won't need it though as I have season tickets.

Red Bull Stadium looks really nice.
To bad about the Red Bull logo though...
The logo would be fine if the brand did not engulf all of the team's identity. If that was just a kit sponsor, it'd look pretty badass relative to others. It becomes cringe territory when you realize the team name to go along with it. They should still be the Metros with a Red Bull logo on their shirts and seats, owned by Red Bull. Why is that so hard?

I don't think the success of the sport in this country lies in exhibitions against plastic-magnet brands from Europe. If the key is beyond MLS, it's CONCACAF Champions League matches against Mexican giants. Those games actually mean something and the teams have genuine fans here.

I don't know where you come from, but there are cities in the United States with large fan bases of European football clubs. Those bases are made up of foreign born and US born.

For example, when I was in Boston a few weeks ago I was at a nice pub that showed all the Premier League and La Liga matches and there were several groups of fans in there watching the matches. In speaking with bartender, he told me they come in on a regular basis to watch the matches.

I think the Red Bull Stadium out of all the new soccer stadiums in the United States is the best one. This new Red Bull Stadium is a STADIUM. Even, proportional. symmetrical. I dont like it when they don't have stands behind the goal because they are thinking of having concerts there. For example Pizza Hut Park.

In other words. The new Red Bull Stadium does not look like an MLS stadium. Its very more European like.

Red Bull Arena is going to become the best soccer only stadium in America, hands down. It's the model that all teams should follow.

I don't know where you come from, but there are cities in the United States with large fan bases of European football clubs. Those bases are made up of foreign born and US born.

For example, when I was in Boston a few weeks ago I was at a nice pub that showed all the Premier League and La Liga matches and there were several groups of fans in there watching the matches. In speaking with bartender, he told me they come in on a regular basis to watch the matches.
The foreign-born fans do not pack NFL stadia for these glorified scrimmages and half a pub does not speak volumes about general support. The bulk of them are soccer fans in general and others are the glory-hunting poseurs that are reviled worldwide.

I have no doubt that there are genuine fans living abroad. I've met some. They seek out soccer-friendly bars and congregate with others in a similar situation. It's not like you can pop into any establishment and find a bunch of Englishmen. Even among those living here, what are the odds that they're all supporting the same few superclubs?

The foreign-born fans do not pack NFL stadia for these glorified scrimmages and half a pub does not speak volumes about general support. The bulk of them are soccer fans in general and others are the glory-hunting poseurs that are reviled worldwide.

I have no doubt that there are genuine fans living abroad. I've met some. They seek out soccer-friendly bars and congregate with others in a similar situation. It's not like you can pop into any establishment and find a bunch of Englishmen. Even among those living here, what are the odds that they're all supporting the same few superclubs?

I dont know about the rest of the US, but I can speak for NYC, where I have visited many many bars and watched football (soccer) games on television. In this city, football ranks near equally among American football and baseball in "pubs" in terms of television time. Some bars ONLY show football, and then other sports like rugby and american sports when they have time and free tv's.

I think that the original guy was right: the US has a lot of foreign football fans in its major cities and IMO having the best Euro teams come over to practice is good fun.

only 25,000 capacity is what i read. how come it wasnt built bigger especially with the success Portland, Toronto and LA are having? i know the red bulls draw flies, but with a new stadium and a better team i think 25,000 is to small.

Its the safe way to go though. As someone else pointed out, The Red Bulls don't draw much over 15K. 25k should accommodate the spike that comes from having a new stadium, in the end attendances would ideally be at the 20k range like that of other teams around the league that now play in a SSS.

And not only that, this stadium is expandable.

That would be Seattle, not Portland.

LA had a nice spike in attendance when Beckham first came along, but even with him around now, they still only draw 20,000-21,000 fans in a 27,000 seat stadium.

Also, Seattle and Toronto are very new franchises who started with avid fan bases. New York has had a franchise since the league started and has never been able to get much above 15,000 people per game. They might get a bit of a jump with a new stadium, but its not magically going to pop up to 30,000 people. Part of the attraction of building these smaller stadiums is that feeling of packing the house (that, and a higher demand for tickets raises prices). That's pretty hard to do in this league with a 30,000 or 35,000 seat stadium.

ya, i dont know why i put Portland there.

I just think that 10 years down the line, most major teams in the MLS could be averaging around 30,000 a game, at least, that is my hope.

The logo would be fine if the brand did not engulf all of the team's identity. If that was just a kit sponsor, it'd look pretty badass relative to others. It becomes cringe territory when you realize the team name to go along with it. They should still be the Metros with a Red Bull logo on their shirts and seats, owned by Red Bull. Why is that so hard?

I completely agree.

The logo would be fine if the brand did not engulf all of the team's identity. If that was just a kit sponsor, it'd look pretty badass relative to others. It becomes cringe territory when you realize the team name to go along with it. They should still be the Metros with a Red Bull logo on their shirts and seats, owned by Red Bull. Why is that so hard?

agreed.

The logo would be fine if the brand did not engulf all of the team's identity. If that was just a kit sponsor, it'd look pretty badass relative to others. It becomes cringe territory when you realize the team name to go along with it. They should still be the Metros with a Red Bull logo on their shirts and seats, owned by Red Bull. Why is that so hard?

Because now they get a quarter every time you mention the team's name (brought to you by carls junior)

new pics of RBA in Harrison, NJ, USA

seating bowl + vip boxes

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4637/rba2.jpg

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9808/rba3.jpg

under the 2nd tier:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6755/rba6.jpg

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7353/rba5.jpg

vip boxes:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8928/rba4.jpg

facade:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7390/rba7.jpg

^^^^

Wow very nice this is actually the first real football stadium in the U.S. :)

^^

The first real footbal stadium in the U.S. is the Home Depot Center


Is the RBA expandable?



I like the facade:dance2:

^^

The first real footbal stadium in the U.S. is the Home Depot Center


Is the RBA expandable?



I like the facade:dance2:

According to the architects, yes! They can put a third deck on it

According to the architects, yes! They can put a third deck on it

It would be a little more costly than expansions to the other SSS's in MLS, but it is built to be expandable. The roof would be raised and a third deck would be added, bringing capacity to ~40,000.

RBA in Harrison, NJ, USA is pretty similar to Pachuca Stadium

RBA in Harrison, NJ, USA is pretty similar to Pachuca Stadium

Not quite. It´s more similar to another stadium - but on purpose.
Think this was mentioned very often.

http://img.over-blog.com/606x455/2/21/32/27/Klagenfurt/Klagenfurt_1534.jpg

pic borrowed from this blog:
http://groundhopping.over-blog.de/article-35163469.html

BTW i like the RB arena. Nice result.

That would be Seattle, not Portland.

LA had a nice spike in attendance when Beckham first came along, but even with him around now, they still only draw 20,000-21,000 fans in a 27,000 seat stadium.

Also, Seattle and Toronto are very new franchises who started with avid fan bases. New York has had a franchise since the league started and has never been able to get much above 15,000 people per game. They might get a bit of a jump with a new stadium, but its not magically going to pop up to 30,000 people. Part of the attraction of building these smaller stadiums is that feeling of packing the house (that, and a higher demand for tickets raises prices). That's pretty hard to do in this league with a 30,000 or 35,000 seat stadium.
LA fans will have to back me up on this, but I think that LA drew better before Beckham. Because the galaxy raised season tickets by a lot and they missed the playoffs three years a in a row. So while they made more money, they drew less.

LA fans will have to back me up on this, but I think that LA drew better before Beckham. Because the galaxy raised season tickets by a lot and they missed the playoffs three years a in a row. So while they made more money, they drew less.

LA led the league in attendance every year until this season since the opening of the HDC and even for a few years prior to their HDC move. Only once the ticket prices went sky high for Becks, but we didn't get Becks for a whole year did attendance drop off to a still good 20,000. Prior to Becks, we were averaging about 25,000 a game.

Wow, that Red Bull stadium actully looks really great. I'll definetly go when it's ready.

http://www.portlandmls2011.com/2009/12/timbers-annouce-pge-park-renovation-plans/

This will be my favorite stadium in the MLS, hands down. Because it has actual history and character. Not to mention the amazing atmosphere provided by Timbers Army. The 1st game vs Seattle is going to be mindblowing.

^^

The first real footbal stadium in the U.S. is the Home Depot Center


Is the RBA expandable?



I like the facade:dance2:

I have to disagree. The first real futbol stadium in the U.S. is the Crew Stadium.

I have to disagree. The first real futbol stadium in the U.S. is the Crew Stadium.

True, I forgot the existence of Crew Stadium :lol:

that stadium in nj is the first european like soccer stadium in the usa.

that stadium in nj is the first european like soccer stadium in the usa.
1st modern soccer stadium, yes. But the rest like Toyota Park and Home Depot center aren't far behind. All they really lack is a roof over all of their stands, but other than that they have modern amenities. Anyhoo, in a summer league the roofs are mostly for the shade (I went to every game this year in Chicago and we only got rain once, in what was the wettests summer in history. So it's not that big of a deal, unlike England in the winter). :cheers:

Anyway, lots of SSS news today. Vancouver is building a temp stadium for the BC lions and Whitecaps until the BC arena is completely renovated.http://static.cdn.mrx.ca/cfl/bc/images/inside/2009/12/Empire-logoed-Green-WEB3805.jpg
http://static.cdn.mrx.ca/cfl/bc/images/inside/2009/12/Empire-inside-view-WEB3901.jpg
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.theprovince.com/sports/Lions+play+million+temporary+facility+Empire+Stadium+site/2371436/Photo+gallery+Artists+renderings+temporary+stadium+Empire+Fields/2371246/2371248.bin?size=620x400

What canada lacks like is a big outdoor sport league like rugby, soccer, the cfl is okay but canada dontt have alot big stadiums

Timetable for Temp/BC Place constructions?

And what's going to happen to the Portland Beavers and Portland State team? MLS telling them to hit the road?

Timetable for Temp/BC Place constructions?

And what's going to happen to the Portland Beavers and Portland State team? MLS telling them to hit the road?

They're working on building the Beavers their own stadium, while Portland State will stay at PGE. That's why they're just about guaranteed to have turf.

What canada lacks like is a big outdoor sport league like rugby, soccer, the cfl is okay but canada dontt have alot big stadiums
For a country for their size, they actually do. BC place, rogers center, olympic stadium and that one stadium in Calgary are all 50-60k. Which isn't bad for a country of 30 million spread over a country the size of western europe. :lol:

Beavers still don't even have a location for their new park. Sad if they have to leave town for a few years.

What canada lacks like is a big outdoor sport league like rugby, soccer, the cfl is okay but canada dontt have alot big stadiums

The CFL has one of the highest average attendances in the world. I'm not sure what you expect from us.

Anyway, lots of SSS news today. Vancouver is building a temp stadium for the BC lions and Whitecaps until the BC arena is completely renovated.http://static.cdn.mrx.ca/cfl/bc/images/inside/2009/12/Empire-logoed-Green-WEB3805.jpg
http://static.cdn.mrx.ca/cfl/bc/images/inside/2009/12/Empire-inside-view-WEB3901.jpg
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.theprovince.com/sports/Lions+play+million+temporary+facility+Empire+Stadium+site/2371436/Photo+gallery+Artists+renderings+temporary+stadium+Empire+Fields/2371246/2371248.bin?size=620x400

I really like the look of this stadium. As much as I love the concept for the BC Place reno, it seems as though it would've been much cheaper to tear down BC Place, build a new convention centre on the land, and build a more luxurious version of Empire stadium.

For $14.4 million CDN, this looks like astounding value for money no matter how spartan the amenities.

Timetable for Temp/BC Place constructions?


The timetable is from right now until June 2010.


















they got some work to do

The CFL has one of the highest average attendances in the world. I'm not sure what you expect from us.

30k is pretty low when you only have 72 games.

In contrast, the NFL averages 68k with 256 games.

Isn't this thread about stadiums in the USA?

30k is pretty low when you only have 72 games.

In contrast, the NFL averages 68k with 256 games.

Your logic is flawed. Home games per team is still the same in both leagues with 8 per season. Simply having more teams resulting in more games doesn't change anything because markets are generally insulated in both leagues. You just have more of them.

And with respect to the BC stadium, it should be moved to the Canada thread

Isn't this thread about stadiums in the USA?

This thread often includes stadiums for Toronto FC and now Vancouver Whitecaps because they will be part of the mainly USA league, MLS.

Yeah, relax. It's not like we've conquered you yet.

Your logic is flawed. Home games per team is still the same in both leagues with 8 per season.

Your facts are flawed. The CFL season is 18 games meaning 9 home games per season.


And with respect to the BC stadium, it should be moved to the Canada thread

Thank you.

This thread often includes stadiums for Toronto FC and now Vancouver Whitecaps because they will be part of the mainly USA league, MLS.

MLS is a mostly US based league? No kidding! But that's beside the point. If someone comes into these forums looking for info on Canadian stadiums, they would go into the "Canada, stadium development thread"... and guess what, they would find none of this relevant information. There's a reason threads are suppose to remain on topic. ;)

Yeah, relax. It's not like we've conquered you yet.

And you never will. :D

Perhaps the thread should be retitled ot Soccer Stadiums of the MLS.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled ot Soccer Stadiums of the MLS.
and USL/NASL

^^of north America then?

^^of north America then?
That's a whole lot of countries.

Someone take a picture of Greenland's stadium.

It's a piece of crap.

From http://redbullsreader.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/seasons-greetings-from-the-new-york-red-bulls/#more-5864

New pics of Red Bull Arena! South stand complete!

Main stand

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/greetings.jpg?w=450&h=196

South stand

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/seats1.jpg?w=450&h=300

Main stand closeup

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/bullssun1.jpg?w=450&h=300

Scoreboard

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/scoreboard.jpg?w=450&h=380

Lockeroom

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/lockers2.jpg?w=450&h=297

MLS is a mostly US based league? No kidding! But that's beside the point. If someone comes into these forums looking for info on Canadian stadiums, they would go into the "Canada, stadium development thread"... and guess what, they would find none of this relevant information. There's a reason threads are suppose to remain on topic. ;)


Then someone post the same links in the canada stadium thread, no harm done either way. :cheers:
My main interests is MLS stadiums so I put them here, since I think MLS SSS are relevant to this discussion whether they play in Canada or the US.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7470/awrendering2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/RedBull-Aerial-People_copyright_SM.jpg

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/greetings.jpg

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/seats1.jpg

http://redbullsreader.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/bullssun1.jpg

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5801/1261583549.jpg

Here is a webcam:

http://www.earthcam.com/clients/redbullarena/

edit , nevermind

this wont last long, this thread will be locked in a few hours.

I think MLS stadiums in the US and Canada should be in here. So what is Vancouver planning on doing? Playing in PC Stadium after the renovation or building the waterfront stadium next to the Convention Center?

Playing in BC Place until they sort out their waterfront stadium issue.

And that Earthquakes stadium looks GOOD

Uh oh, capacity's under 30,000, hit the deck...

is part of the upper deck made of metal

And that Earthquakes stadium looks GOOD

Not a fan of the Earthquakes stadium. Too small and sets a very low bar for stadiums in this league, which could set a bad precedent going forward. 18,000 should be the minimum SSS size for MLS.

try all of it

Not a fan of the Earthquakes stadium. Too small and sets a very low bar for stadiums in this league, which could set a bad precedent going forward. 18,000 should be the minimum SSS size for MLS.

Why? if you can't fill 18,000 what's the point. Colorado and Dallas would be better off in 15,000 seat stadiums. It would create ticket demand.

The U-design leaves clear room for expansion if need be. This is not being funded publicly, though, so we can't really complain about how the owners spend their money.

Low capacity should be 10,000. That sounds tiny, and it is, but as was stated, not all teams will need 18,000 seats, and that just creates more overhead for the team in the form of upkeep costs.

all that does is make it look temporary ugh

A project looks like a stadium in Dnipropetrovsk.

http://www.fcdnipro.dp.ua/content/ru/images/dnipro-arena_1.jpg

the capacity is 10k?!

the capacity is 10k?!
No, 15k seated with grass berm at one end, fitting roughly 3k.

Why? if you can't fill 18,000 what's the point. Colorado and Dallas would be better off in 15,000 seat stadiums. It would create ticket demand.

If you can't have the demand for an 18,000 seat stadium, you shouldn't have a team. Dallas and Colorado both have poor support, but suffer from poor stadium location above all else. If San Jose doesn't have the demand for 18,000, then why should they have a team over other cities that can have higher demand and a more feverish fan base?

If you can't have the demand for an 18,000 seat stadium, you shouldn't have a team. Dallas and Colorado both have poor support, but suffer from poor stadium location above all else. If San Jose doesn't have the demand for 18,000, then why should they have a team over other cities that can have higher demand and a more feverish fan base?

Because they wrote the check to buy a team. Deserve has nothing to do with anything in this league. Did the awesome fan support of Columbus deserve the team they had the past two years?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7470/awrendering2.jpg

Reminds me of Veracruz and the mini nou camp in barcelona.

Veracruz
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/10068407.jpg



mini estadi in Barcelona
http://www.fcbarcelonablog.com/images/Sven1.JPG

http://sharkspage.com/jpgs6/quakes_stadium2.jpg

http://cdn.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/EarthquakesStadium2.jpg

When is the earthquakes stadium going to be built?

http://cdn.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/EarthquakesStadium2.jpg

^^ this stadium looks soooo crappy! why cant they make it look like the red bulls arena? why cant they close it off?

^^
IMO not, in Dnipropetrovsk is one tier, here are two.

all that does is make it look temporary ugh

how?

because the majority of metal stands are temporary in my experiences

If you can't have the demand for an 18,000 seat stadium, you shouldn't have a team. Dallas and Colorado both have poor support, but suffer from poor stadium location above all else. If San Jose doesn't have the demand for 18,000, then why should they have a team over other cities that can have higher demand and a more feverish fan base?
Financing is the issue, not demand. In 2007, when the team was resurrected, plans were for a 22K-seat stadium to be shared with SJSU athletics. Wolff and Fisher were to finance their share by flipping a large piece of property in south San Jose that was going to be rezoned residential. The market went to shit and so did the partnership with the university (who wanted 30K to stay in D-I football), so this design is the result of ownership going alone and out-of-pocket.

I can't wait to se the RBA in full swing!!!

because the majority of metal stands are temporary in my experiences

but this is not temporary, this stadium wont be hosting any major event to have temporary stands, they did this just to save money (I think so), although with this price is way too expensive, more than 180M dollars, I really dont get it why is it so expensive :ohno: ... for example, in Gelsenkirchen, Arena AufSchalke, Schalke's stadium has been built for cca 200M Euros, and it has 60k seats, retractable roof, retractable field - whole pitch goes out to take sun, big video cube, really huge / in Frankfurt on Main, Commerzbank Arena was paid 150M Euros, and it has roof all over the pitch, 50k seats)... so all this could have been done with 30-40M, in comparing to these two stadiums

Arena AufSchalke

http://www.bloggang.com/data/vr1428/picture/1129099961.jpg

http://www.jaga.be/references/ed8a9bfd-c674-4b18-9053-46801156bbba/Pic1.jpg

Commerzbank Arena

http://www.plusarquitectura.info/files/drupalbb/images/Commerzbank%20Arena.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2167/2371794576_6e66405142_b.jpg

Yeah, metal stands make it pretty obvious that costs are being cut, if it's a permanent thing.

but this is not temporary, this stadium wont be hosting any major event to have temporary stands, they did this just to save money (I think so), although with this price is way too expensive, more than 180M dollars, I really dont get it why is it so expensive :ohno: ... for example, in Gelsenkirchen, Arena AufSchalke, Schalke's stadium has been built for cca 200M Euros, and it has 60k seats, retractable roof, retractable field - whole pitch goes out to take sun, big video cube, really huge / in Frankfurt on Main, Commerzbank Arena was paid 150M Euros, and it has roof all over the pitch, 50k seats)... so all this could have been done with 30-40M, in comparing to these two stadiums


Cost of construction labor in New York is astronomical.

Cost of construction labor in New York is astronomical.

Its not in New York , its next to Newark and its cheaper to build in my State , which has sparked Massive Movement form NY to NJ for New Companies or Expansion of Companies. In 20 years rose the Jersey City Skyline due to this. The area where the stadium is being built used to be an abandoned Industrial area , now its transforming into a City within a City. and the City of Harrison like Neighboring Newark is using buyouts and taking land form owners that have neglected it for too long & turning it around. But as the Region bounces back more prepare for New Jersey to turn into a Modern Oasis , and that Stadium to be the first of many European style ones built in the US:)

~Corey

Cost of the Land in NY is incredibly high. But most MLS stadiums looks temporarily made because at some point we hope to build true soccer pitches like the ones you see in Europe... so we need an easy way to bring this down.

http://cdn.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/EarthquakesStadium2.jpg

^^ this stadium looks soooo crappy! why cant they make it look like the red bulls arena? why cant they close it off?

I agree. It would look so much better with it all closed in.

I agree. It would look so much better with it all closed in.

which is the overall plan; however, currently, economics don't justify closing it off.

Because they wrote the check to buy a team. Deserve has nothing to do with anything in this league. Did the awesome fan support of Columbus deserve the team they had the past two years?

Yes, but in building a stadium with almost or all private money then you are setting a bad precedent for the rest of the league and making it tougher for other teams to get public support. Also, when I reference support, I'm not just referencing support in terms of attendance. There is also the corporate support that is so important. The San Jose stadium isn't even a go and is dependent on securing sponsorship money. If the Quakes cannot get the public and corporate support, they shouldn't have a team. It's bad for the league.

http://cdn.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/EarthquakesStadium2.jpg

^^ this stadium looks soooo crappy! why cant they make it look like the red bulls arena? why cant they close it off?

Cause our owner is a cheap a-hole who doesn't know how to properly run a club.

Yes, but in building a stadium with almost or all private money then you are setting a bad precedent for the rest of the league and making it tougher for other teams to get public support. Also, when I reference support, I'm not just referencing support in terms of attendance. There is also the corporate support that is so important. The San Jose stadium isn't even a go and is dependent on securing sponsorship money. If the Quakes cannot get the public and corporate support, they shouldn't have a team. It's bad for the league.
That's the economic reality in California. Philip Bullschitz was clever enough to dupe some no-name CSU campus into sharing a stadium in a metro where the NFL was not so successful (twice), but that's not the norm. Suburbs in Utah and Colorado and Texas will happily build 20K stadia; however, not the case out here. Screw their public support if we can't get any. We need a stadium and security however we can get it.

SSS means Soccer Specific Stadium, right? So why are they adding/building main stages? I understand that soccer isn't as profitable as football but come on...

Piza Hut Park
http://images.google.pl/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/18/article-1162982-03F8EF97000005DC-480_468x286.jpg&usg=AFQjCNH0s7I8v7Cf_WhJW65w1sbv1tYOMg
Thre roof and everything, looks like thery're not dont with the construction of th 4th stand. :)

Toyota Park
http://images.google.pl/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.sportsvuesoccer.com/images/upload/stadium.gif&usg=AFQjCNF1H2jSbaDTkj4soz_wAS1vkzF0Ow
The Scoreboard/tv is awesome! but the stage area takes away the feeling of a sss. Without the stage it would be a perfect exapmle of a cheap sss.:okay: At least the roof serves it purpose when it's raining. *cooough* *cough* Dick's Sporting Goods Park *cough*:storm:

Rio Tinto
http://images.google.pl/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://blogs.sltrib.com/b2evolution/media/blogs/burger/2929159179_a7814fe9c1.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEWZ2JGCNgOIxoJC1nBqyRnASrTSA
*Rio Tinto stadium doesn't have a big main stage but it looks almost exactly like the Toyota Pk. :bash:

Every SSS should be unique and SOCCER SPECIFIC, not cocnert specific.

***Another thing that looks weird/silly (from a european point of view) is the grassy area behind the goal line. It looks like the picnic area/it is the picnic area :popcorn: but for a fan who has been around cages, metal bars, police and fences, it looks silly.


I like the idea, it is cool, it sends the message to people that soccer isn't about violence, it is about picnicking on a saturday afternoon where you can spend some time with family... but try to explain it to a fan from europe, try to tailgate in front of a stadium in Poland, for example :eat: lol

earthquakes stadium
http://cdn.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/EarthquakesStadium2.jpg

Home Depot Center
http://images.google.pl/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://images.clubzone.com/company/images/9047.jpg&usg=AFQjCNELqISj9HardPImSOlmyaxbxbXeEQ

-------------
And for all the people who think that the Earthquakes stadium looks crappy... here is a pic of the Kassam Stadium.

http://images.google.pl/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.oxkits.co.uk/2000s/kassam%2520stadium.JPG&usg=AFQjCNFc4nJFZShx7FLwD1GSEDN1xatSnQ

Yes, but in building a stadium with almost or all private money then you are setting a bad precedent for the rest of the league and making it tougher for other teams to get public support. Also, when I reference support, I'm not just referencing support in terms of attendance. There is also the corporate support that is so important. The San Jose stadium isn't even a go and is dependent on securing sponsorship money. If the Quakes cannot get the public and corporate support, they shouldn't have a team. It's bad for the league.

The Panthers couldn't get public money and they're 8th in NFL attendance.

The burden of an urban stadium built with public funds falls squarely upon in the middle class in areas like San Jose and Charlotte, the more affluent tend to live beyond the boundaries of the city-proper for tax reasons and therefore won't be paying anything toward the stadium while they enjoy the suites that the people who paid for the stadium can't afford. The with 15 minutes left to play the main roads in the city -- which the also didn't pay for -- become clogged with suburbanites looking to "beat the traffic".

I have nothing but admiration for teams that build stadiums with their own capital. I know in the lock-step world of the American sports system we're never supposed to mention what lower division and minor league teams do in reference to what major league teams do, but if the Charleston Battery -- and I don't care that it only holds 5,200 -- can build a stadium with their money, so can any "major league" team.

but for a fan who has been around cages, metal bars, police and fences, it looks silly.

That's what's silly to me. I don't know in which Europe do you live, but in mine I don't see cages, fences or metal bars (well, not that much). I don't want to be treated like an animal, you know?

I agree. It would look so much better with it all closed in.

I's not the end of the world. They can easily complete it.

There are stages because they make more money hosting concerts at these venues then home soccer games.

Also its not as if it's impossible to remove the stages. They're easy to take apart in order to add an extra stand when needed.

Its not in New York , its next to Newark and its cheaper to build in my State , which has sparked Massive Movement form NY to NJ for New Companies or Expansion of Companies. In 20 years rose the Jersey City Skyline due to this. The area where the stadium is being built used to be an abandoned Industrial area , now its transforming into a City within a City. and the City of Harrison like Neighboring Newark is using buyouts and taking land form owners that have neglected it for too long & turning it around. But as the Region bounces back more prepare for New Jersey to turn into a Modern Oasis , and that Stadium to be the first of many European style ones built in the US:)

~Corey

After the Sopranos get through with you, the construction costs in YOUR state are not much cheaper then building in NY. The big difference is the price of land.

That's what's silly to me. I don't know in which Europe do you live, but in mine I don't see cages, fences or metal bars (well, not that much). I don't want to be treated like an animal, you know?

several european countries have stadiums that separate the spectators from the field with fences and metal bars.

I dont know about the rest of the US, but I can speak for NYC, where I have visited many many bars and watched football (soccer) games on television. In this city, football ranks near equally among American football and baseball in "pubs" in terms of television time. Some bars ONLY show football, and then other sports like rugby and american sports when they have time and free tv's.

I think that the original guy was right: the US has a lot of foreign football fans in its major cities and IMO having the best Euro teams come over to practice is good fun.

I would think Dallas would sell out the new Cowboys Stadium for one of the top four British vs another good European football game. Maybe those living in Liverpool would be surprised to see 80k Texans seeing Premiere League football....

I would think Dallas would sell out the new Cowboys Stadium for one of the top four British vs another good European football game. Maybe those living in Liverpool would be surprised to see 80k Texans seeing Premiere League football....

I think only a MFL team vs Barcelona or Real Madrid would have a chance.

I would think Dallas would sell out the new Cowboys Stadium for one of the top four British vs another good European football game. Maybe those living in Liverpool would be surprised to see 80k Texans seeing Premiere League football....

You don't need European teams to sell out Cowboys Stadium. Just have the Mexican national team play their home games there. You are guaranteed a sellout every time.

You don't need European teams to sell out Cowboys Stadium. Just have the Mexican national team play their home games there. You are guaranteed a sellout every time.

I don't think Dallas could sell out for European soccer. They had the game over the summer (not a sellout), but I am willing to bet a good portion of that crowd was there to see the new stadium.

You are right about the Mexican team, they would easily sell out.

Awesome. Almost made me cry, that's what America is all about right there.

I assume you are talking about the advert on page 1 'If you die who would take care of your family'?

In civilised countries the answer is 'the state'. That's what we pay taxes for.

several european countries have stadiums that separate the spectators from the field with fences and metal bars.

I assume you are talking about the advert on page 1 'If you die who would take care of your family'?

In civilised countries the answer is 'the state'. That's what we pay taxes for.

In civilized countries we have insurance, and we don't need to keep home and away fans separate from eachother and the field with bars and barbed wire.

In civilized countries we have insurance, and we don't need to keep home and away fans separate from eachother and the field with bars and barbed wire.

I wish we had that at NYR - NYI games

philly stadium- taken from the union website:

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5224/philx.jpg

In civilized countries we have insurance, and we don't need to keep home and away fans separate from eachother and the field with bars and barbed wire.

No, we segregate them in terms of whether or not they can purchase insurance.

You'll no doubt have some retort, mine will be filming a video of my application and denial to prove myself correct.

My crime? Being too tall :)

No, we segregate them in terms of whether or not they can purchase insurance.

You'll no doubt have some retort, mine will be filming a video of my application and denial to prove myself correct.

My crime? Being too tall :)

Just because the american insurance system is corrupt and inefficient, the answer IS NOT socialism.

Back to topic.

Just because the american insurance system is corrupt and inefficient, the answer IS NOT socialism.

Back to topic.

In most countries socialism is the answer, but your government is just as corrupt and inefficient as the insurance companies.

The government can make it so insurance companies act in a more fair manner, and provide insurance for those that can't afford it. Which is what we are trying to accomplish now, a process I fully support. I do not support a complete takeover which has proven to be too expensive. Anyway, if people stop bickering, we wouldn't get off topic like this. That's all anyone does on this site, bitch, whine, insult, STFU!

philly stadium- taken from the union website:

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5224/philx.jpg

Wow, awesome progress there!

In most countries socialism is the answer, but your government is just as corrupt and inefficient as the insurance companies.

"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
Leon Trotsky
Russian Soviet politician & Communist revolutionary

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison 4th President of the U.S.

Philly's stadium is coming along very nicely.

STADIUM forum. and not politics

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c141/PhJD/bmoexpand3.jpg

1,249 new seats

Wow, awesome progress there!

^^ I agree

Not sure I'm enthused about the form of the BMO expansion. Makes the structure appear temporary or decidedly incomplete (ie: cheap).

But so long as they keep selling out then that will not only gloss over such perceptions but enable the club to move another step closer towards a larger facility down the road. Good for you, Toronto, and keep up the good work!

Doesn't seem like a worthwhile renovation.

totally pointless expansion, if they've got such a long waiting list why not add 5,000 seats at that tiddily end!

totally pointless expansion, if they've got such a long waiting list why not add 5,000 seats at that tiddily end!

My guesses on why I think they went this route. One is that putting in seats there makes it very tough to extend the playing surface for CFL and TFC wants to keep BMO theirs and theirs only. Another reason is that this is a cheap way to go for now and leaves room underneath the new stand to put suites in when they go forward with a major expansion. Also, I think they want to wait a little longer and then propose a major expansion with another 10,000 seats or so, but they need to ensure that the demand is there in the long term and at that point, they may be able to get funding for it from the city as well.

Wow, awesome progress there!

Those pictures are pretty old, there's been a lot more progress at the site.

totally pointless expansion, if they've got such a long waiting list why not add 5,000 seats at that tiddily end!

Because they want to keep the demand for tickets high, that way they're able to raise prices every year. What I don't really understand is why they need to have 3 video boards at one end.

totally pointless expansion, if they've got such a long waiting list why not add 5,000 seats at that tiddily end!

Fire regulations, for a bigger expansion they'd have to invest in new bathrooms, exits and etc. As it is, the new seats will be served by the building behind that end. The exposition center or something, a TFC fan could probably explain it.

But keeping demand high is another. I think they should expand the other end and create a proper GA/SRO section for their supporter section.

With respect to Metro11's question about the video boards there's actually only one in the centre. The two on the sides are actually billboards.

As for the new stand itself, this was as big as they could make it without resorting to demolishing those big group suites in the corners and/or moving the video board. The talk is that next winter the 2nd deck will be extended around to the south stand to add 5,000 seats. The supports for the 2nd deck are already in place as you can see in the picture.

^Actually those are video boards. As to why they are needed, no idea.

very interesting indeed. tfc

Here's a vid of the construction of Philadelphia's stadium:
http://vimeo.com/8729544

Anyone knows when they will play their first home game there? All I know is that it won't be ready for the season opener in April.

Here's a vid of the construction of Philadelphia's stadium:
http://vimeo.com/8729544

Anyone knows when they will play their first home game there? All I know is that it won't be ready for the season opener in April.

They've yet to say. Rumors have it anywhere from May to August.

Union Field at Chester is a soccer-specific stadium in Chester, Pennsylvania that is currently under construction. It is the planned home of Philadelphia Union, a Major League Soccer club, and the Philadelphia Independence of Women's Professional Soccer. The project is the result of combined commitments of $30 million from Delaware County and $47 million from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Was supposed to be opened by April but due to delays planned date of opening is somewhere in July 2010.

More information can be found here:
http://philadelphiaunion.com/Content1.aspx?cid=4.0

Impressively for Philly they've already sold out all of their midfield and club seats. Usually those are the last to go. They look well on their way to selling out on a weekly basis.

In before the close...

Anyone knows when they will play their first home game there? All I know is that it won't be ready for the season opener in April.

I've read the opener is going to be played at the Eagles stadium.

I agree. It would look so much better with it all closed in.

http://cdn.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/EarthquakesStadium2.jpg

^^ this stadium looks soooo crappy! why cant they make it look like the red bulls arena? why cant they close it off?

I agree. It would look so much better with it all closed in.




I don't agree.

I like that asymmetry.

I've read the opener is going to be played at the Eagles stadium.

Correct. They'll play the opener at Lincoln Financial Field and likely more as they wait for the Chester Stadium to be completed.

Whole lotta cryin goin on.

Correct. They'll play the opener at Lincoln Financial Field and likely more as they wait for the Chester Stadium to be completed.

I imagine the upper deck will be tarped off?

Seconded.

Here's the latest rendering for the new Kansas City stadium.

http://i340.photobucket.com/albums/o343/kcwizards_1996/JanRevWizards300dpi.jpg

I like what I'm seeing. Despite it's a pretty poor rendering.

Video of Red Bull Arena:

http://mlsinsiderblog.com/?p=952

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/dd/fullj.e72bc8fc9700b019c9c11995483cbad7/e72bc8fc9700b019c9c11995483cbad7-getty-95658593ms012_new_york_red_.jpg

Video of Red Bull Arena:

http://mlsinsiderblog.com/?p=952

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/dd/fullj.e72bc8fc9700b019c9c11995483cbad7/e72bc8fc9700b019c9c11995483cbad7-getty-95658593ms012_new_york_red_.jpg

^^They all look like they are having a great time there!

^^They all look like they are having a great time there!

The looks on their faces say "why did we build this thing in New Jersey?"

The looks on their faces say "why did we build this thing in New Jersey?"

Well aren't you very ignorant....

wait what?

This stadium is an interesting experiment.Not sure how much I like it at the moment though. It is very much a generic mainland Europe style stadium in New York. Slightly surreal.Not much attention to aesthetics compared to flashy American stadiums but very similar to stadiums in countries like Switzerland and Germany in particular.

This stadium is an interesting experiment.Not sure how much I like it at the moment though. It is very much a generic mainland Europe style stadium in New York. Slightly surreal.Not much attention to aesthetics compared to flashy American stadiums but very similar to stadiums in countries like Switzerland and Germany in particular.

Its not in New York its in New Jersey , theres a difference.

Its not in New York its in New Jersey , theres a difference.

It is in the New York area of the world and the team represents New York apparently so I dont really see the difference a few miles makes in the context of what I was saying. Still... thanks for the information.

wait what?

When starting a new thread (30,000+ for Stadiums and 10,000+ for Arenas), please follow the correct style of thread title.

Well aren't you very ignorant....

...please elaborate...?

The guy in the middle to the left is Hasse Backe, the news coach.
He's swedish and he's really good!

...please elaborate...?
What is wrong with New Jersey, specifically Harrison, NJ. Why isn't it a good location? You can see NYC skyline from the stadium, it is in a Hispanic community, it is right next to downtown Newark, convenient to get to (path train) where exactly do you propose they build it?

in the middle of manhattan duh

Looks kinda strange having a real looking European soccer stadium in the US, yes the US seems to be courting FIFA for a future SWC it will suceed it's just which one 2018 or 2022.

Looks kinda strange having a real looking European soccer stadium in the US, yes the US seems to be courting FIFA for a future SWC it will suceed it's just which one 2018 or 2022.

I doubt any MLS stadium will host a WC. :)
But perhaps a U-20 WC?

in the middle of manhattan duh

If even the idea of building the Olympic Stadium in Manhattan was thrown around, then building a SSS there definitely seems like it would be possible.

If you haven't seen them already, here are the uniforms for the Philadelphia Union.

Home
http://www.philadelphiaunionstore.com/v/vspfiles/photos/TT-ADP57254-2.jpg

Away
http://www.philadelphiaunionstore.com/v/vspfiles/photos/TT-ADP58442-2.jpg

wow NICE, looks like an instant classic.

in the middle of manhattan duh

LOL, yeah like that was ever an option.

New Jersey never seems to get proper credit for anything we do, that benefits New York. Its always NYC who gets it. Theres a big difference between that area and NYC. So i think everybody or almost everybody needs to stop giving NYC credit for things that are in NJ. Everything consumed in NYC is imported through or made in NJ. Like the New York Times or Post or Tropicana which is Imported through Port Bayonne.

New Jersey never seems to get proper credit for anything we do, that benefits New York. Its always NYC who gets it. Theres a big difference between that area and NYC. So i think everybody or almost everybody needs to stop giving NYC credit for things that are in NJ. Everything consumed in NYC is imported through or made in NJ. Like the New York Times or Post or Tropicana which is Imported through Port Bayonne.

NJ complex ehh ? If NJ wants more respect, expand PATH like the NYC subway system did.

The Philadelphia Union kit looks good, but how will it look with ads on the chest?

http://www.wfan.com/Red-Bull-Arena-Update---1-18-2010/6165063

1/18/2010

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922169.jpg?1264086458

http://www.wfan.com/pages/6165063.php?imageGalleryXRefId=1634797#imgXR

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922164.jpg?1264086449

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922166.jpg?1264086542

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922167.jpg?1264086546

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922168.jpg?1264086425

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922170.jpg?1264086560

^^
wow thats really nice stadium. its good to see soccer specific stadiums.

NJ complex ehh ? If NJ wants more respect, expand PATH like the NYC subway system did.

Were expanding the PATH to Newark in't Airport , sometime this decade , the Harrison Station , like most of the PATH stations is getting an overhaul. Were building a Light Rail network between Newark-Paterson-and that part of Hudson County.

It was announced today that the first match at Red Bull Arena won't be their March 27th season opener versus Chicago, but instead a preseason friendly on March 20th versus Santos FC of Brazil.

It was announced today that the first match at Red Bull Arena won't be their March 27th season opener versus Chicago, but instead a preseason friendly on March 20th versus Santos FC of Brazil.

I'm going waaaaaayyyyyyyy out on a limb and predicting Pele will be there.

Any news on DC United's stadium? If ever a MLS team needed a new stadium, it would be them. And maybe the Revolution.

Any news on DC United's stadium? If ever a MLS team needed a new stadium, it would be them. And maybe the Revolution.

Nothing really new on DC, which is a shame. Of all the teams, I want them to get a stadium next. There's talk of Baltimore trying to lure them and Goff said a couple days ago that DC is looking at suburban Maryland and Virginia now.

Man, 9 of 14 MLS Cup trophies belong to teams still paying rent. How upside-down are we?

I'm going waaaaaayyyyyyyy out on a limb and predicting Pele will be there.

plus +1

http://www.wfan.com/Red-Bull-Arena-Update---1-18-2010/6165063

1/18/2010

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922169.jpg?1264086458

http://www.wfan.com/pages/6165063.php?imageGalleryXRefId=1634797#imgXR

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922164.jpg?1264086449

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922166.jpg?1264086542

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922167.jpg?1264086546

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922168.jpg?1264086425

http://imgsrv.wfan.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/201001/5922170.jpg?1264086560


I may hate the current name of the team and the current club badge, but damn we got one nice stadium.

Total rip-off from Klagenfurt stadium .

http://www.wayfaring.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/worthersee1.jpg

Total rip-off from Klagenfurt stadium .

http://www.wayfaring.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/worthersee1.jpg
A genuine clone of the Klagenfurt stadium, not just a ripp-off.

A very nice stadium to clone though. Much better be the 2nd clone of Klagenfurt than the thousandth clone of derby/leicester/southampton/darlington/coventry.................

Imo they should have made the roof of the main stand as high as the other parts, looks a bit akward as it is. But I guess you won't note this much apart from air shots.

Still by far the best soccer stadium of the MLS.
How is it costwise compared to other newly built soccer stadiums in the US?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/4096954424_cf0a0ff067_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4270514114_8cf47b24ee_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3528/3990979794_c2c2d397ca_o.png

Total rip-off from Klagenfurt stadium .A genuine clone of the Klagenfurt stadium, not just a ripp-off.a) This was all covered when the design was released.
b) This was intentional, based upon connections through the design team. Since the stadia are separated by a literal ocean neither RBNY nor SK Austria felt aggrieved or short-changed. It's quite simply a case of one organization appreciating the form employed by another. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Yes, something wholly original would've been nice, but when you're working on as tight as budget as MLS teams are, there's something to be said about maximizing resources as well. If anything, the imitation among MLS venues is the bigger concern, as that will lead to sterility in fan appeal.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3528/3990979794_c2c2d397ca_o.pngThanks for posting these. I'm quite enthused about the planned renovations and only lament that they seem shy of the potential.

I've only recently learned of the desire to maintain the visibility from/to the street on the eastern side. Was really hoping to see a stand that matched the height and form of existing stands, yielding a horseshoe, as it were. The club-house/restaurant seating built into the new stands also seems a compromise between wanting the amenity and putting it in as cheaply as possible: I was hoping such features could've gone in somewhere in the existing suites. Alas.

Still stands to be one of the nicer venues in MLS if fully realized.

Definitely going to be the most unique MLS stadium when completed. I just feel bad for the Beavers.

Puerto Rico Islanders of the USL also play in a former baseball stadium.

http://i9.tinypic.com/7ynn6nq.jpg

http://www.prislandersfc.com/index/images/stories/images/estadio_lleno.jpg