PDA

View Full Version : Sounders expands (again)



TFC247
06-26-2009, 07:40 AM
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesports/archives/171954.asp

33,000 and counting now. How far can they go?

Hitcho
06-26-2009, 07:43 AM
Hanauer said. "But we feel the capacity we have now is optimized for demand and cost structure and the atmosphere. Anything beyond that we'd have to think long and hard about.
"We're not ignorant to the fact more dollars could be generated. We realize we could make more revenue by opening more seats, but we want to take a very long-term look at this issue, not just how we generate a few more dollars for a game at a time."

=====================

Oh man, what I'd give to be owned by someone with this outlook...

TFCmatty
06-26-2009, 07:45 AM
Seattle are sounding more and more like the Anti-MLSE....

Kaz
06-26-2009, 08:41 AM
I'm happy to see that success if Vancouver can pick up similar success maybe MLSE will actually put some money into the club.

Huston, Toronto and Seattle show what the sport could be if the right markets are chosen, lets up we see the same thing in Philly, Portland and Vancouver.

rocker
06-26-2009, 08:48 AM
Seattle are sounding more and more like the Anti-MLSE....

ummm no... it's easy for him to say when he has a 67000 seat stadium!

He's already expanding it to 13000 more than BMO Field. And their ticket prices are very close to BMO Field's.....

TFC has said EXACTLY the same thing ("but we want to take a very long-term look at this issue") about expansion of BMO.

Don Julio
06-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Seattle are sounding more and more like the Anti-MLSE....

Not really.. they're limiting the number of seats to artificially increase demand, just like MLSE.

RedMAN127
06-26-2009, 09:31 AM
Not really.. they're limiting the number of seats to artificially increase demand, just like MLSE.

and still have seats available for all remaining games ... selling 67,000 tickets for the friendlies (it has been suggested here before that these matches were a bonus for supporters, LOL) people will bash MLSE for anything!

Hater's should start cheering for montreal!!!

jabbronies
06-26-2009, 10:02 AM
Not really.. they're limiting the number of seats to artificially increase demand, just like MLSE.

Just like MLSE?? wtf? How is MLSE limiting the number of seats to artificially increase demand? Is it thier fault that the city owns the stadium and have a lot of red tape that needs to be gone through in order to make more seats happen?

the only thing MLSE is guilty of is allowing scalpers to to do what thier doing in order to create a false sense of demand for tickets!

Steve
06-26-2009, 10:09 AM
ML$E slept with my girlfriend and kicked my dog!

nascarguy
06-26-2009, 10:27 AM
in 119 they could add 3 more seats in each row easy

VoxPopuliCosmicum
06-26-2009, 10:34 AM
Just like MLSE?? wtf? How is MLSE limiting the number of seats to artificially increase demand? Is it thier fault that the city owns the stadium and have a lot of red tape that needs to be gone through in order to make more seats happen?

The answer to your question is "yes". If MLSE wanted to control BMO for expansion purposes, it could easily do so, and could have done so from the beginning. Instead, MLSE wanted to get the stadium paid for by tax dollars and MLSE continues to hide behind the city's ownership as the obstacle to expansion & grass.

I'm not saying MLSE is the antichrist, merely answering your question.

C.Ronaldo
06-26-2009, 10:42 AM
MLSE has more pull than people seem to believe.

Boris
06-26-2009, 10:45 AM
MLSE has more pull than people seem to believe.

:lol:
here..take 60 million and have fun with it...

BEST LINE EVER :D

Beach_Red
06-26-2009, 10:51 AM
The answer to your question is "yes". If MLSE wanted to control BMO for expansion purposes, it could easily do so, and could have done so from the beginning. Instead, MLSE wanted to get the stadium paid for by tax dollars and MLSE continues to hide behind the city's ownership as the obstacle to expansion & grass.

I'm not saying MLSE is the antichrist, merely answering your question.


And not just MLSE, but any other ownership group who had stepped up - except no one else did.

I'm still a little surprised that so many people are intereted in bringing another NHL team to Toronto - a league that has topped out and won't get any bigger, but no one else was willing to get into soccer, a sport with such a big future.

Shakes McQueen
06-26-2009, 11:07 AM
Hanauer said. "But we feel the capacity we have now is optimized for demand and cost structure and the atmosphere. Anything beyond that we'd have to think long and hard about.
"We're not ignorant to the fact more dollars could be generated. We realize we could make more revenue by opening more seats, but we want to take a very long-term look at this issue, not just how we generate a few more dollars for a game at a time."

=====================

Oh man, what I'd give to be owned by someone with this outlook...

If TFC were in a pre-existing stadium with the ability to expand pre-existing seating, I'm sure they'd be doing the exact same thing.

I'm also a little confused as to why doing a cost-benefit analysis on seating is considered an "anti-MLSE" thing to do. On the contrary, it sounds like exactly something MLSE would do, because it's prudent business.

Private interests in Qwest Field funded about $130M of the $430M overall cost, except Qwest Field had the advantage of being primarily designed as a new home for Seattle's beloved American Football team, not a soccer team. Therefore the other $300M was publicly funded. Sound like another stadium we all know and love?

Unfortunately, city ownership and government stipulations were part of the "catch" to getting to build TFC's home on such prime, government owned land.

What I'm saying is - if BMO Field had thousands of additional seats already built into it, that were just covered over by a tarp, and the demand was there - you don't think they would be doing the exact same thing as Seattle? Of course they would.

- Scott

Detroit_TFC
06-26-2009, 11:12 AM
I'm sure Seattle would love to pinch the supply of tickets. Unfortunately all anyone needs to do is look up in Qwest to know that its a ploy. So limiting supply was never going to work even through a single season. For us, it will take millions of dollars to expand supply.

Rudi
06-26-2009, 12:28 PM
The answer to your question is "yes". If MLSE wanted to control BMO for expansion purposes, it could easily do so, and could have done so from the beginning. Instead, MLSE wanted to get the stadium paid for by tax dollars and MLSE continues to hide behind the city's ownership as the obstacle to expansion & grass.

I'm not saying MLSE is the antichrist, merely answering your question.
Perhaps you should answer it factually then.

The LAST stakeholder to get on board with the stadium was MLSE. The stadium was being built regardless, and the CSA (not MLSE) had already secured Federal and Provincial funding to get it downe.

The CSA sought out MLSE to bring in an MLS franchise and make sure BMO Field would not become a white elephant after the U20 WC. They also needed someone to run the facility.

So no, MLSE did not "choose" to get the stadium to be paid by tax dollars. The stadium process was already well under way by the time they got on board.

Kaz
06-26-2009, 12:59 PM
When BMO was built no one expected 19k-20k crowds for every game, I'm sure no one expected 16000 season ticket holders either, leaving all off 4000 seats for regular folk.

Seattle is playing in a 67,000 seat stadium, They have a great deal of demand right now, and so they are expanding it. If they maintain these crowds great, it's good for the sport, I'd rather have near sell out crowds then the more then half empty Pizza Hut Park, or the nearly half empty Crew Stadium.

Good for seattle.

C.Ronaldo
06-26-2009, 01:17 PM
give us grass, and all will be forgiven for now

Limani_Ole
06-26-2009, 03:49 PM
I wouldnt want a BMO expansion unless they build more washroom, concessions, another gate and more room to move around.. the place is packed as it is!!!

VoxPopuliCosmicum
06-26-2009, 04:59 PM
Perhaps you should answer it factually then.

The LAST stakeholder to get on board with the stadium was MLSE. The stadium was being built regardless, and the CSA (not MLSE) had already secured Federal and Provincial funding to get it downe.

The CSA sought out MLSE to bring in an MLS franchise and make sure BMO Field would not become a white elephant after the U20 WC. They also needed someone to run the facility.

So no, MLSE did not "choose" to get the stadium to be paid by tax dollars. The stadium process was already well under way by the time they got on board.

Semantics. MLSE put up zero real cash and zero real risk on the stadium (that is to say the naming rights were sold for the amount of MLSE's contribution to the stadium's capital cost and the stadium operating contract carries little risk for MLSE). Those considerations change if TFC becomes the sole tenant and brings in grass. BMO Field is not the same revenue stream without daily non-TFC uses.

I'm grateful to have a team, and I'm obviously willing to pay MLSE handsomely for its efforts, but that doesn't mean I don't think they're getting a sweetheart deal out of the P3 arrangement. The deal becomes much less of a sweetheart if MLSE does what they say "they want to do but just can't because of the big, bad city and its cumbersome bureaucracy." Got any facts to refute that?

jloome
06-26-2009, 06:23 PM
ML$E slept with my girlfriend and kicked my dog!


MLSE kicked my girlfriend and slept with my dog!

AdamZ
06-26-2009, 09:59 PM
what exactly will expanding BMO do? Make it look nicer? Does MLSE really need the revenue dollars? Beyond just that, how is having 8000 more people, most probably 5000 at most will regularly sell, who are likely going to be casual fairweather fans, at BMO going to help anything? All it will do is make the atmosphere worse. I have a suspicion that when expansion inevitably happens which I hope isn't soon we will have another Highbury vs. Emirates situation on our hands.

I would focus on making the product better and not the venue. Indeed, if BMO needs a cosmetic makeover it needs roofs and such, not extra seats. Maybe add facilities or make those available better. Maybe put seats in the north end, but that should pretty much be it. Grass is much more needed than more seats.

Smaller ground with excellent atmosphere and regular sellouts/near capacity crowds>bigger ground with okay-good atmosphere and plenty of empty seats.

Kaz
06-26-2009, 11:55 PM
It's sad to hear BMO snobs go on about fairweather fans, and there being no need for extra seating, when they have season tickets and aren't denied the ability to see the game live without talking with a scalper.

If BMO is to expand it needs to be expanded properly not just retrofitted, I can wait till they can Renovate BMO to bring it up to 25000+, and bring it in line with traditional Stadiums, with roofs and syemetry. I'd rather wait 5 more years and have an end product that is full of awesome, then wait 2 years and have an addition that looks like a DYI job.

Pookie
06-27-2009, 07:15 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about expansion. Yes, you might get a chance to see a game but at what cost?

Obviously, the cost to expand will need to be recovered. Will that drive up ticket prices for the 20,000 current seat holders?

Would fans buy season seats at higher price levels? If you look at the waiting list of 13,000, how many of those fans are price conscious? ie. holding out for cheap seats? Many passionate Gold listers opted for partial packs over season seats because of the cost. Reds aren't for everyone and there are only so many seats in the cheaper sections.

Further, the stadium's current amenities appear to be stretched to capacity. Is adding 5-8k more people without retrofitting a number of the washrooms/concessions a really good idea?

Let's also not ignore the "fad factor" that grips elements of the Toronto sports fan. It is sold out now as were the Jays. The Jays now play in an empty stadium, where scalpers sell tickets less than box office pricing. Atmosphere is non existent.

We are not even through our 3rd season. Yes, there are passionate fans that go and will always go. But I'd wager there is a "fad factor" to some of the demand for tickets.

Throw the Argos in a 20,000 seat stadium (some other stadium, NOT OURS) and I'll bet you they become "cool" again... just like the Montreal Alouettes.

By expanding you do make access easier. But if it becomes an easy ticket to get, how many "fans" are going to go in April when it's 7 degrees and raining? What will that do to the atmosphere?

In an ideal world, I'm all for adding roofs as I think that would really play up the "gameday experience." I'd love to see the beer garden removed, a north end supporters section installed with expanded concessions/washrooms underneath.

I'm just not sure that $28 tickets pays for that. If anything, expansion of the east side with its "red pricing" is more likely. If that's the way it goes down, I'm not sure that is a good thing.

jabbronies
06-27-2009, 11:44 AM
Would fans buy season seats at higher price levels? If you look at the waiting list of 13,000, how many of those fans are price conscious? ie. holding out for cheap seats? Many passionate Gold listers opted for partial packs over season seats because of the cost. Reds aren't for everyone and there are only so many seats in the cheaper sections.

This is key to keeping the fans coming back. Right now the game is affordable. Hopfully ticket prices don't go too high, otherwise, people won't come. The people with $$$ are buying Leafs or Raptors Seasons, adding TFC may break the bank for them.


Let's also not ignore the "fad factor" that grips elements of the Toronto sports fan. It is sold out now as were the Jays. The Jays now play in an empty stadium, where scalpers sell tickets less than box office pricing. Atmosphere is non existent.

We are not even through our 3rd season. Yes, there are passionate fans that go and will always go. But I'd wager there is a "fad factor" to some of the demand for tickets.

As long as we stay competitive and the soccer gets better, I don't see the fad fading. But the soccer has to get better. You can't sell shit for too long.


Throw the Argos in a 20,000 seat stadium (some other stadium, NOT OURS) and I'll bet you they become "cool" again... just like the Montreal Alouettes.
Nope, I still won't go to an Argo's game. I hate pigskin. Too slow and boring.


By expanding you do make access easier. But if it becomes an easy ticket to get, how many "fans" are going to go in April when it's 7 degrees and raining? What will that do to the atmosphere?
That'd why we need a roof!!:hump:



I'd love to see the beer garden removed, a north end supporters section installed with expanded concessions/washrooms underneath.
So would I, too many people there who don't care about the game. They are just there to drink beer and strike a pose.

rocker
06-27-2009, 04:15 PM
Seattle adds field seats.... where have we seen this before? ;)

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Now-you-can-watch-the-Sounders-right-from-the-field