Comments on: Just another Pie-in-the-Sky MLS Stadium Proposal?

By: sj_oldtimer

sj_oldtimer — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:21:56 +0000

The notion of a shared stadium should be a non-starter and apparently is, except for people who really don’t know much about MLS. I think those are the same people who like to make comparisons between MLS and the old NASL. MLS is in it’s 14th season. By this time in it’s history, the NASL was clearly in free fall, on it’s way to oblivion. The same does not appear to be true for MLS.

Also, there is not going to be any expansion or rebuilding of Buck Shaw Stadium. Lew Wolff, The Earthquakes and MLS do not have much control of that facility. It is owned by Santa Clara University and there is virtually no chance that the school is going to be interested in such improvements or expansion….not to mention the neighbors who live in the area.

San Jose fans have been burned by past ownership issues and neglect. I think the league made the assumption that San Jose would support pro soccer regardless of how poorly the league treated the franchise. It did not work that way and people lost interest, with the last straw coming with AEG/MLS showing their collective middle finger to San Jose after 2005. It’s not yet clear that Lew Wolff will overcome that bit of disrespect.

By: bigdumbgod

bigdumbgod — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:10:24 +0000

The Quakes are getting a Soccer Specific Stadium, as per MLS standards for expansion franchises. The A’s are likely going to get a stadium next to the Shark Tank. Both will be on the smaller-capacity side of venues in their respective leagues, as Lew Wolff prefers filled stadiums over half-empty cavernous ones. The two new facilities certainly will not be one and the same, any more than baseball and soccer are in any way similar.

For issues regarding a potential shared-facility situation, please visit the stadium proposal the Niners have put forth to be built next to Great America. The NFL appears to be leaning on the two Bay Area pointyball teams to work out a sharing arrangement.

By: Rock

Rock — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:03:06 +0000

Nick, what part of the Mercury News article made you think there is a “good chance” of a shared Quakes/A’s stadium? If anything it is a last resort.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:16:06 +0000

Many are very opposed to the idea of a joint stadium, but I see it as a way to build a real stadium, one that can support essential future growth if they are successful and one that can be advantagous financially. If they are not going to draw 30k eventually, well you are a San Jose fan, tell me what happened to the Earthquake and Sounders….
They have a few losing seasons, the fan base goes away and then the league goes away. Sounders were drawing 25k+ in the late 70s and early 80s too. 50k plus for playoffs. By 1983 I was alone with 6,000 of my best friends.
All I am saying is that a stadium that tops out at 15k is just waiting for the team to fold. It is not big enough for where they need to get to…getting the best players, or at least keeping the best American players.
Americans will only put up with a feeder league to Europe for so many years.
ps. I love the old NASL teams and obviously feel for anyone losing their team ( Sonics )…go Earthquake.

By: Cavan

Cavan — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:42:21 +0000

Charles, your points are right on the money about the EPL. However, the blog post was about concepts for the San Jose Earthquakes new stadium.

The Quakes are in a very different place than Seattle. Remember that San Jose was one of the founding members of the league. They drew slightly below average and then had their fanbase eroded by a few losing seasons. Even when they were a winning team between 2001-2005, their attendance only increased incrementally. Then they were suspended for two seasons. They came back as an expansion team that plays at a different facility that is too small.

The Quakes are rebuilding and proving themselves to a slightly smaller than average fanbase that has already been burned. It is an old fanbase and will therefore grow slower. Seattle, while impressive, is partially reaping the rewards that the older clubs worked for. Seattle wouldn’t be anywhere nearly as successful if the league hadn’t already been in existence for years.

There’s a bit of apples to oranges to compare there.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:05:45 +0000

If you read the Mercury news article, there is a good chance that Lew builds a stadium in downtown San Jose that can serve as the home for both the A’s and the Quakes.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:34:43 +0000

The best league in all of sport has the same team winning every year ?
The best league has the 6th best team with close to a 1000-1 odds to win it all ?
Literally every team in the NFL has a better chance of winning the championship than 15 out of 20 of the EPL teams. It is a joke of a league.
The best league is so boring that the winning team doesn’t take a shot on goal in the clinching game ?
The big excitement of the weekend was the the team that wins every year didn’t crush their opponent they won in a close game. Very exciting.
Who is going to finish in last seems to be the biggest topic to talk about.

I would love to hear your arguements saying the EPL is a great league.

By: sam

sam — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:00:46 +0000

worst league in the history of sports, more like one of the best, give your argument against it

By: Lee14

Lee14 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:27:46 +0000

I hope Mr. Wolff and Quakes can get it done!

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:24:50 +0000

By far the most successful financial organization, I actually don’t have any numbers to back that up but I doubt it will be disputed, is not soccer specific stadium, and is in fact related to the NFL Seahawks.
I really don’t get the idea of building a 15-20k stadium. IF the idea is to create artificial demand by selling out, that is great, but this league will NOT survive that way. My team is in last place, now we hope to draw over 10k is the next step. Unfortunately that is the first step to we can’t make it, much less pay anyone worth watching.
Single Table ? Why ? So you can have the EPL ? Worst league in the history of sports and would NOT be supported in the US.