Comments on: Seattle MLS: A Local Club or a Global Brand?

By: Sammy Sounder

Sammy Sounder — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:47:13 +0000

I think we did put together a phenomenal soccer stadium. The first time the stadium that is now Qwest went up to a taxpayer vote it failed. The second time was after the design was changed to accomodate FIFA and international football. The soccer fans put Qwest field over the top and the stadium received taxpayer funding. Qwest was built for soccer. The entire “throwball” field can be removed and replaced quite rapidly if the stadium management deems it cost-effective.

Second, it’s all about opportunity cost and sound fiscal policy. If the ownership group had to pony up for a new stadium then that would be money spent on a stadium and not on signing players, coaches and other activities. They’re thinking, “spend the money on a player to bring in the fans now and sell enough tickets to buy a stadium later.”

I think that this ownership group will pony up for a soccer-specific stadium if it makes financial sense. In other words, if we put 20K people in Qwest Field for 2 years than we break ground on Sounders Stadium in year 3 and we build a 40K person stadium.

By: Slap My Fro!

Slap My Fro! — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:35:04 +0000

What I don’t understand is this (and I would really appreciate it if there were anyone that could answer my question): Why are the Sounders going to be playing in Qwest Field next year? You would think that with the money the owners of this club have, that conjuring up plans for a SSS wouldn’t be too much work. Surely the city would go for it. Especially if the club was willing to pay 100% of the cost. Paul Allen, Microsoft billionaire, Drew Carey, and other very rich people are involved in this club. Money should be no object. This is the same club that was willing to pay Thierry Henry 225,000 per week if he would come play for them. There shouldn’t be any problems putting together $100-150 million for a new 25,000 seat capacity soccer-specific stadium.

Can anyone answer my question?

By: Wade

Wade — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:25:37 +0000

I’m not a native to Seattle, but live here now. While I think as an actual name for a team Sounders is awful, I’ve come to recognize to the value and tradition of the name and voted for it as often as I could (I only have so many “unique” email addresses to use to register my vote). MLS needs to sit back and thank the 14K folks who have purchased tickets and let them get their way lest the interest in the team goes the way of the Miami Fusion (anybody remember them?). I grew up in Tampa and loved watching the Rowdies and waiting for the moments that Rodney Marsh was sure to snap, and I proudly wore my Rowdies t-shirt with the “Kick in the Grass” slogan. I hated it when the fools in NY came up with the Mutiny. Had they connected Mutiny to Tampa’s history (pirates, Gasparilla, etc.) it could have worked, but the space alien livery was a joke. Think that didn’t have an effect on interest in the team and why they are no longer in the league? So, MLS braintrust, shut up, let the tradition live even if it does not match up with your global, Euro style research marketing, keep the Sounders name alive, and graciously thank a community for getting behind the team and the league.

By: Andre

Andre — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:51:40 +0000

MLS commissioner, Don Gerber, needs to realize something: In order to know where you’re going, you need to know where you’ve been. I am not only a long-time fan of the Vancouver Whitecaps, going back to their NASL days, I am a huge supporter in the growth of soccer in North America. The NASL may have failed as a league, but the legacy and the impact on North American soccer was a success. MLS needs to realize this. Now, while I too, am not a big fan of singular collective noun team names, some of the non-plural names do sound good for North American soccer clubs. For example, Toronto FC should have resurrected the Toronto Blizzard name. That was a team with a history. The Tampa Bay Mutany, on the other hand, was a public-relations disaster. I can’t even connect the meaning of Mutany with Tampa. Had they used the old Rowdies name, there would have been far more sentiment and passion. Of all the old NASL teams that need to be revived, the one that is the MOST obvious is the New York Cosmos. That was a team that was either loved or hated by passionate U.S. soccer fans. Isn’t what sports is supposed to be about? Favourite team. Heated rivalry. Hated team(friendly that is). MLS is doing all the right things that the NASL had done wrong. However, they need to drop this “move forward” attitude. They chose a great American soccer market to join them in 2009. They should take advantage of having Seattle, by allowing the Sounders name to be used. A future Whitecaps-Sounders-Timbers I5 rivalry in MLS is very marketable and it would give the league something to market to the rest of the world. Write in Seattle Sounders. Next, New York Cosmos.

By: Sammy Sounder

Sammy Sounder — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:12:11 +0000

The Seattle Sounders faced Pele, we can take on Graber WITH YOUR HELP.

OTE! This is about saving football from the MLS. For the soul of the sport. . .

Go to www.mlsinseattle.com

write-in “Seattle Sounders”

By: Bulk VanDerHuge

Bulk VanDerHuge — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:43:11 +0000

Mackenzie, I’m not against Fire because it’s an historical event - I’m against it because it’s singular. Too many American sports do that - it’s a basic English mistake.

If you were looking to name a Chicago team after something that shaped the city, you could as easily call them the Wind (though I would hate to give any so-called marketing genius any ideas).

That said, I have a healthy respect for tradition and Sounders should be the name of Seattle’s team.

By: Mackenzie

Mackenzie — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:35:54 +0000

I disagree that Fire is all that bad - it references a major historical event that shaped Chicago as a city. The same way Sounders (and Whitecaps or Timbers for that matter) have a particular local significance that really needs to be respected if there’s any desire to establish an entrenched soccer culture.

By: Bulk VanDerHuge

Bulk VanDerHuge — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:50:34 +0000

What is it with American sports that insist on giving their teams ridiculous non-plural nicknames? “Republic”? What in the world are you supposed to call one of them? “Alliance”? Utter pablum.

“Wiz” described a bodily function, not a football club. “Galaxy” is bad enough, “Fire” is ridiculous. Name the team Sounders and link with one of the few clubs that links back with the NASL. It’s stunning to me that there’s even a debate over this.

And yeah … I’m American.

By: Rob C

Rob C — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:55:31 +0000

How about, to appease the masses, they go with just Sounders FC…global AND local…can’t miss!

By: Barnacle Brian

Barnacle Brian — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:09:15 +0000

‘What’s your soul worth
‘What’s your soul worth
‘What’s your soul worth Sounders fan?’

‘I don’t need one
‘Never had one
‘Came to see a marching band!’