Seattle Sounders 2015 Season Thread

[knownone]

More franchises, more exposure, more exposure = more money.

 

[Smurf]

Garber held a press conference today, not much of note except this stood out to me;

Garber: "In the next 6 months, we have to develop a plan with our ownership for when we go further than 24 teams. Because we will."

It's always puzzled me that Garber and the owners are so hell bent on expansion. Is it because they want to money grub as many franchise fees before this hits critical mass?

IMO it makes more sense to have LESS clubs in a league where all the clubs draw 25k+, have great fanbases and are financially stable enough to each afford at least two high priced DP's..........than a 20-30 club league with bottom dwelling financially struggling franchises pulling the cap down.

While that is a good plan, it leaves out large portions of the US. Leaving many fans without clubs. Granted, thats going to happen...but in the US that number is really large. Most soccer fans in the US have a favorite team they follow...and for many of them...its not in MLS. Its overseas or down in Mexico (especially southern states). Cities that have franchises often get local support from existing soccer fans, and then transition into cultivating a new fan base.


The idea of expanding to more and more cities is to increase the number of MLS supporting soccer fans in the US, while simultaneously increasing revenue and quality of the game in our country. While I do worry that fast expansion can hurt us, I am not as fearful as I was a few years ago. The leagues reputation is growing, and not just locally or nationally, but internationally. MLS is quickly becoming one of the most internationally accessible leagues in the world. The league has signed a whole slew of broadcast deals in the last few months including one with Sky Sports (UK), Eurosport (Europe minus UK), Brazil, and others.

As the league grows more popular (and it will), we will also see the structure of the league begin to shift. It wouldn't shock me at all if in 30 years we have MLS and MLS2 with a promotion-relegation system. But for now, we have to focus on increasing accessibility to the league, and developing talent for the league to show case. Sure big stars will help with the draw, but we also need to to surround those stars with quality. The transformation of the academy system is absolutely huge for this country. And the partnership between MLS and USL will help foster that system.

 

[Smurf]

3 points vs portland....doesn't get much better than that!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

3 points vs portland....doesn't get much better than that!

Amen.

I was a little nervous after it was obvious that Porter's gameplan going in last night was to play bunker ball conservative defense and try to get a set piece or counter goal with no Marshall in our lineup............which Portland DID have a couple really good chances.

I am getting a little frustrated with Pineda, seems like with each passing match his fitness and productivity wanes sooner and sooner. He was toast after like minute 60, giving up WAY too much ground on our defensive 3rd making Ozzie and others scramble to cover for him.

Lord I hope we get an upgrade at CM soon.

 

[knownone]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

 

[CurryStopstheRuns]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

Odd that you say that because I do not recall Yedlin being able to do that either. That, and if he did make a run his crosses were horrendous.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

Odd that you say that because I do not recall Yedlin being able to do that either. That, and if he did make a run his crosses were horrendous.

Yedlin could get wide, but he rarely could put in a decent cross. But the point is taken, having a blindingly fast outside back (and winger) puts tremendous stress on a defense and changes the way they gameplan.

We don't have that right now, which is why you see a lot of narrow playing and team's clogging the middle of the pitch.............daring us to get wide.

 

[Smurf]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

Odd that you say that because I do not recall Yedlin being able to do that either. That, and if he did make a run his crosses were horrendous.

Yedlin could get wide, but he rarely could put in a decent cross. But the point is taken, having a blindingly fast outside back (and winger) puts tremendous stress on a defense and changes the way they gameplan.

We don't have that right now, which is why you see a lot of narrow playing and team's clogging the middle of the pitch.............daring us to get wide.

Dylan Remick is our pace and width. He doesn't get forward as often as Yedlin did because Mears is seen as a better server of the ball, so often it is Mears who joins the attack.


That said...We have little pace, due to Pappa and Neagle, we have very little width...

 

[Uncle Si]

Garber held a press conference today, not much of note except this stood out to me;

Garber: "In the next 6 months, we have to develop a plan with our ownership for when we go further than 24 teams. Because we will."

It's always puzzled me that Garber and the owners are so hell bent on expansion. Is it because they want to money grub as many franchise fees before this hits critical mass?

IMO it makes more sense to have LESS clubs in a league where all the clubs draw 25k+, have great fanbases and are financially stable enough to each afford at least two high priced DP's..........than a 20-30 club league with bottom dwelling financially struggling franchises pulling the cap down.

While that is a good plan, it leaves out large portions of the US. Leaving many fans without clubs. Granted, thats going to happen...but in the US that number is really large. Most soccer fans in the US have a favorite team they follow...and for many of them...its not in MLS. Its overseas or down in Mexico (especially southern states). Cities that have franchises often get local support from existing soccer fans, and then transition into cultivating a new fan base.


The idea of expanding to more and more cities is to increase the number of MLS supporting soccer fans in the US, while simultaneously increasing revenue and quality of the game in our country. While I do worry that fast expansion can hurt us, I am not as fearful as I was a few years ago. The leagues reputation is growing, and not just locally or nationally, but internationally. MLS is quickly becoming one of the most internationally accessible leagues in the world. The league has signed a whole slew of broadcast deals in the last few months including one with Sky Sports (UK), Eurosport (Europe minus UK), Brazil, and others.

As the league grows more popular (and it will), we will also see the structure of the league begin to shift. It wouldn't shock me at all if in 30 years we have MLS and MLS2 with a promotion-relegation system. But for now, we have to focus on increasing accessibility to the league, and developing talent for the league to show case. Sure big stars will help with the draw, but we also need to to surround those stars with quality. The transformation of the academy system is absolutely huge for this country. And the partnership between MLS and USL will help foster that system.

Smurf, large portions of the US are left out of many sports. Not every city, major or minor, needs to have a professional team in any sport. This is a concern I have for the MLS and their desire to keep expanding. Iowa? Nebraska? Oklahoma? Phoenix? San Antonio? All have large soccer populations. But are any ready for an MLS team?

I'm interested to hear what the "transformation of the academy system" (one that started 5 years ago) is doing that is so dynamic and important to professional soccer, as I work in it. If its developing quality, I will once again say that quality development in the MLS is seen as an investment, to be sold off to bigger clubs. Its going to be that way for a generation still.

The MLS needs to be careful. The NHL should be both their test model and standard.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I get what Smurf is saying, and it makes sense in a broad way of growing a league by creating as many new soccer fans in as many markets as possible.

But IMO that's kind of a pollyanna way of trying to grow soccer in the US. As the meager MLS TV ratings can attest to, Joe Blow sports fan isn't exactly being won over the the beautiful game, so not sure putting an MLS club in his city is going to change that.

Putting franchises in cities like Orlando does make sense because that's a soccer hotbed, but just saying "NOW WE WANNA GO TO MIAMI, MINNEAPOLIS, VEGAS, SACRAMENTO!!! ON AND ON!!" is going to be detrimental to the league as whole over the long haul because in the end the #1 way to grow a sport is $$$$$, and the way you get money in professional sports is not expansion, it's not gate receipts, it's not merchandising...............it's TV revenue. And the only way to get the TV revenue up to the level it needs to be to sustain a 15-20 club league is to get that cap space up to a level where the MLS can start competing with other leagues for major players AND continuing to develop our own players.

I just don't see this happening with 10 clubs every year in a 25 club league keeping the cap # so low. I'm just fine with soccer crazy cities like Orlando, and previously Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, etc getting clubs..........but if one or two clubs join, then Garber needs to do more like what the league did with Chivas, add by subtracting a franchise that's dragging the league down.

 

[Seahawks1983]

I get what Smurf is saying, and it makes sense in a broad way of growing a league by creating as many new soccer fans in as many markets as possible.

But IMO that's kind of a pollyanna way of trying to grow soccer in the US. As the meager MLS TV ratings can attest to, Joe Blow sports fan isn't exactly being won over the the beautiful game, so not sure putting an MLS club in his city is going to change that.

Putting franchises in cities like Orlando does make sense because that's a soccer hotbed, but just saying "NOW WE WANNA GO TO MIAMI, MINNEAPOLIS, VEGAS, SACRAMENTO!!! ON AND ON!!" is going to be detrimental to the league as whole over the long haul because in the end the #1 way to grow a sport is $$$$$, and the way you get money in professional sports is not expansion, it's not gate receipts, it's not merchandising...............it's TV revenue. And the only way to get the TV revenue up to the level it needs to be to sustain a 15-20 club league is to get that cap space up to a level where the MLS can start competing with other leagues for major players AND continuing to develop our own players.

I just don't see this happening with 10 clubs every year in a 25 club league keeping the cap # so low. I'm just fine with soccer crazy cities like Orlando, and previously Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, etc getting clubs..........but if one or two clubs join, then Garber needs to do more like what the league did with Chivas, add by subtracting a franchise that's dragging the league down.

Are there really any teams left in the CDUSA mold though? Sure, some teams still don't draw well (Dallas, Colorado come to mind) but KC was once in that group as well, and look at them now.

I just don't see contraction as a necessity going forward.

 

[Smurf]

Where do you see that previous expansion has failed?

Since 2005 here are the expansions, with their 2014 attendance average


Chivas USA (Folded, and pending re-brand) - 7,063
Real Salt Lake - 20,351
Houston (Relocation) - 20,117
Toronto - 22,086
San Jose - 14,947
Seattle - 43,734
Philadelphia - 17,631
Vancouver - 20,408
Portland - 20,806
Montreal - 17,421
NYCFC
Orlando
Atlanta
Los Angeles
Minnesota


Obviously those last 5 are new enough to get past judgement...

However, based on those numbers I would say each of those expansions is a success, aside from Chivas USA. San Jose, Philadelphia, and Montreal are next on the side of low attendance, but they aren't failures in my mind. Especially considering that all 3 have their own Soccer specific Stadiums, and in the case of Montreal and San Jose, access to a larger venue for occasional matches.

For me, attendance is one of the first things I look at with expansion. Is there enough fan support help build the league?

I see your point about TV ratings, but I think as a national foundation is layed the numbers will improve. Especially as we see larger name players come to the league....3 years away from Ronaldo in LA, Gerrard, Xavi, Lampard sooner than that....and not to mention many younger latin stars that I haven't even heard of yet.

If MLS can couple more TV Markets, with international stars, and the ability to cultivate young stars the league will continue to grow at an outstanding rate.

I think the current expansion model is solid and working.

 

[Smurf]

Garber held a press conference today, not much of note except this stood out to me;

Garber: "In the next 6 months, we have to develop a plan with our ownership for when we go further than 24 teams. Because we will."

It's always puzzled me that Garber and the owners are so hell bent on expansion. Is it because they want to money grub as many franchise fees before this hits critical mass?

IMO it makes more sense to have LESS clubs in a league where all the clubs draw 25k+, have great fanbases and are financially stable enough to each afford at least two high priced DP's..........than a 20-30 club league with bottom dwelling financially struggling franchises pulling the cap down.

While that is a good plan, it leaves out large portions of the US. Leaving many fans without clubs. Granted, thats going to happen...but in the US that number is really large. Most soccer fans in the US have a favorite team they follow...and for many of them...its not in MLS. Its overseas or down in Mexico (especially southern states). Cities that have franchises often get local support from existing soccer fans, and then transition into cultivating a new fan base.


The idea of expanding to more and more cities is to increase the number of MLS supporting soccer fans in the US, while simultaneously increasing revenue and quality of the game in our country. While I do worry that fast expansion can hurt us, I am not as fearful as I was a few years ago. The leagues reputation is growing, and not just locally or nationally, but internationally. MLS is quickly becoming one of the most internationally accessible leagues in the world. The league has signed a whole slew of broadcast deals in the last few months including one with Sky Sports (UK), Eurosport (Europe minus UK), Brazil, and others.

As the league grows more popular (and it will), we will also see the structure of the league begin to shift. It wouldn't shock me at all if in 30 years we have MLS and MLS2 with a promotion-relegation system. But for now, we have to focus on increasing accessibility to the league, and developing talent for the league to show case. Sure big stars will help with the draw, but we also need to to surround those stars with quality. The transformation of the academy system is absolutely huge for this country. And the partnership between MLS and USL will help foster that system.

Smurf, large portions of the US are left out of many sports. Not every city, major or minor, needs to have a professional team in any sport. This is a concern I have for the MLS and their desire to keep expanding. Iowa? Nebraska? Oklahoma? Phoenix? San Antonio? All have large soccer populations. But are any ready for an MLS team?

I'm interested to hear what the "transformation of the academy system" (one that started 5 years ago) is doing that is so dynamic and important to professional soccer, as I work in it. If its developing quality, I will once again say that quality development in the MLS is seen as an investment, to be sold off to bigger clubs. Its going to be that way for a generation still.

The MLS needs to be careful. The NHL should be both their test model and standard.

Of the ones you listed, I can only see Oklahoma and San Antonio getting MLS teams given the current expansion model, but that would be a ways down the road.


As for the transformation of the academy I was more referring to the MLS-USL partnership, and the "first generation" reaching the pro level. While I agree that some talent will be sold overseas, there will be more that stay in the league....and those that do stay in the league will still elevate the quality, IMO.

 

[knownone]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

Odd that you say that because I do not recall Yedlin being able to do that either. That, and if he did make a run his crosses were horrendous.

I'm really not sure what to make of this. Yedlin basically played as a wing back for us last year. His job was to make over lapping runs and take people on, and he did it at least 10 times per game. The quality of his service isn't an issue, the width pulls defenders out the middle which gives more space for Dempsey and Martins to operate. That's the issue we have right now, they crowd the middle and force Dempsey and Martins to make passes through tight windows. Teams are not afraid of isolating Neagle 1v1 because 80% of the time he's going to lose possession. Mears doesn't have the pace to consistently get outside and Remick doesn't have the technical ability to justify trying to beat people as a LB.

We either need a true winger or CM whose capable of unlocking a defense.

 

[CurryStopstheRuns]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

Odd that you say that because I do not recall Yedlin being able to do that either. That, and if he did make a run his crosses were horrendous.

I'm really not sure what to make of this. Yedlin basically played as a wing back for us last year. His job was to make over lapping runs and take people on, and he did it at least 10 times per game. The quality of his service isn't an issue, the width pulls defenders out the middle which gives more space for Dempsey and Martins to operate. That's the issue we have right now, they crowd the middle and force Dempsey and Martins to make passes through tight windows. Teams are not afraid of isolating Neagle 1v1 because 80% of the time he's going to lose possession. Mears doesn't have the pace to consistently get outside and Remick doesn't have the technical ability to justify trying to beat people as a LB.

We either need a true winger or CM whose capable of unlocking a defense.

That may have been true at first, but when he was unable to win 1v1 match ups, or effectively serve crosses, his threat became nothing more than false perception.

 

[knownone]

It's becoming more and more apparent how important Yedlin was last year. We literally have no one who can go wide and beat people 1v1.

Odd that you say that because I do not recall Yedlin being able to do that either. That, and if he did make a run his crosses were horrendous.

I'm really not sure what to make of this. Yedlin basically played as a wing back for us last year. His job was to make over lapping runs and take people on, and he did it at least 10 times per game. The quality of his service isn't an issue, the width pulls defenders out the middle which gives more space for Dempsey and Martins to operate. That's the issue we have right now, they crowd the middle and force Dempsey and Martins to make passes through tight windows. Teams are not afraid of isolating Neagle 1v1 because 80% of the time he's going to lose possession. Mears doesn't have the pace to consistently get outside and Remick doesn't have the technical ability to justify trying to beat people as a LB.

We either need a true winger or CM whose capable of unlocking a defense.

That may have been true at first, but when he was unable to win 1v1 match ups, or effectively serve crosses, his threat became nothing more than false perception.

What does that even mean? You thinking Yedlin isn't a threat does not change how the game works. The simple act of him making runs and the threat of his speed stretches the defense. That is the point I was making, I'm not saying Yedlin is some super 1v1 perfect cross machine.

 

[CurryStopstheRuns]

I am of the belief that you are being intentionally daft so we are done here.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If MLS can couple more TV Markets, with international stars, and the ability to cultivate young stars the league will continue to grow at an outstanding rate.

If I was in charge of marketing, this is what I'd focus on. Soccer may not be the most popular sport in the US and Canada, but it is everywhere else in the world. So take advantage of the MLS season being in the rest of the world's off season by trying to gain footholds on foreign sports cable networks.

Are you telling me South Americans flipping stations in June and July wouldn't stop at an Orlando FC match to see how Kaka's doing? Or Irish soccer fans looking to get their soccer fix wouldn't tune into a Galaxy match to see Keane?

I was in Italy two years ago in September and when I asked if the bar we were at had any MLS stations, the dude looked at me like I was speaking Martian. He just said "American soccer?" like I was talking about a USMNT match.

Anyway, MLS has enough stars now to at least pique soccer fans interest in other countries, go after them.

 

[knownone]

I am of the belief that you are being intentionally daft so we are done here.

Evidently reasonable dialog is being daft, or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

I feel like MLS has done a good job in vetting the newer teams that have joined the league and will be successes to varying degrees. My annoyances would be that NYCFC should have had more solid stadium plans in place than play in a baseball stadium and have bought the Cosmos name, Portland should be playing in a bigger stadium rather than a modernised Portland equivalent of Memorial stadium. I think both Minnesota and Atlanta will do well and seem to have good plans in place.

LA should not have 2 teams. The city couldn't support 2 NFL teams in the past. Chivas was a disaster. Any team there will be in the shadow of LA Galaxy for a long time given their long term success.

Before anymore expansion though they've got to look at the struggling teams:

New England- There's no excuse for those crowds in that market. It's not like the Revoultion haven't been successful on the field. I think it's time for the league to tell Kraft to build a proper stadium closer to Boston or remove them from the league until someone does. It's fine travelling to Foxboro for the Patriots- a long successful NFL team (i'm sure most people would travel long distances for NFL games), it's different for an up and coming league trying to attract casual and new fans. What's the appeal and travelling all that way to an almost empty tarped off stadium. The clink works for the Sounders as it's downtown and easy to get to, I doubt they'd get as big crowds if it was in Bellevue or Tacoma.

Dallas- The crowds they are getting given their population are again pitiful. This shows that not all soccer specific stadiums are great without the right planning. It's a long drive from Dallas to get there through toll roads. Again putting off the casual fan.

Columbus- Have been successful in the past but still low crowds. Maybe the league should be looking to move to Cincinatti or Cleveland?

NY Red Bulls- Fine for now but I see major problems ahead. Redbull are supposed to be pulling out and Henry is gone. They have a nice stadium but I feel the league should rebrand them as New Jersey and appeal to the suburbs, setting up a NJ/NY rivalry before they lose fans to NYCFC. The stadium is hard to get to for anyone in NYC.

I think San Jose are okay for now given they have been in temp stadiums but I would have like to have seen them nearer San Francisco/Oakland.

I think if teams can get around 20,000 average attendance then thats pretty good for a minority sport and is average for a lot of leagues outwith giant teams. I would like to see another team really take off and get similar attendances to Seattle. It's why i'm fine with the Clink. IF we were getting 20,000 then i'd like to have seen them get their own stadium- mainly completely rebuild Memorial stadium. At 40,000 I think it works well with the clink and I don't want us to be limited on what we can fill as I see potential for it to improve. Although grass is an issue, I feel the leagues worldwide are moving towards turf, especially smaller teams due to the cost saving and the fact they can rent out their stadiums to make extra cash. Wouldn't be surprised to see bigger European teams using i within 10 years with the ever improving technology.