He is part owner, but he was made part owner so that the other owners wouldn’t have to pay rent for Qwest. Paul Allen had the chance to bring soccer to Seattle from 1996-2008 and did nothing.
Hate Sounders. Drew Carey betrayed his home town. When Seattle went to MLS it ruined Clevelands USL 2 Championship team. F*&% Off Seattle and Drew Carey, you’re scum. Go Timbers!!!
I scrolled through all of these comments to see if anyone else would note that. I thought that comment was hilarious. Guess I’m not the only soccer fan/grammer nazi on board here.
Ugh are we really all relinquished to a message board rivalry?
My uncle from P*rtscum has been sending me trash talk texts all day that have more substance that the previous 90 posts.
This whole corporate vs organic argument is stupid. Seattle has more of everything because we have more fans. Portland wouldn’t be in the league without us, but yes, our hardcore/supporter base isn’t as large as the TA. Whatever.
Overall, the rivalry looks like this:
Sounders – 35 wins
Timbers – 21 wins
Where it counts, we put the hurt on you. I would resort to bragging about fans too, that is, if I supported a team that can’t get it done on the pitch.
In France, I usually see “le classique.” On the French version of Wikipedia, PSG-OM isn’t listed as one of the possible regional derbies in the country.
Qwest/SSFC: majority owner is ex-chairman of 20th Century Fox and Walt Disney Studios. Other owners are a businessman whose family owns a feather-bed company, a co-founder of Microsoft, and Drew Carey.
Timbers: Owner is the son of the former Secretary of the freaking Treasury, who was a stakeholder himself at least as of 2008.
I support a team ultimately owned by the 39th-richest man in America, whose holdings worldwide include many millions of dollars in real estate and entertainment facilities, oil and railroad companies, and, er, other stuff. Our stadium is named after the largest do-it-yourself chain in the country.
In other words, the corporate/”authentic” debate is crap when we’re talking MLS teams, at least the ones on the U.S. West Coast. All our ticket money goes to greedy oligarchs and capitalist pig overlords, but we enjoy the soccer so that’s cool.
I can think of only one solution. Who is louder on sat night. As a spokanite (google it dickworm) I will be tearing my vocal cords to shreds in favor of the blue, of the blue, and the green, and the green
Never mind the fact that the owner of the Seahawks is also a part owner of the Sounders. That fact is a bit too inconvenient.
Quest and JW are both good facilities. Both share their space with throw-ball teams. Both have a good environment for the fans. I’d take either over many of the stadia in MLS.
9/10ths of the bs talking points about Seattle being “corporate” and “fake” were started by Timbers fans during the interim after Seattle joined MLS. What other group than the Timbers fanbase would start a competition to celebrate whatever club scored the most goals against a specific team in a given year?
Portland fans on the whole are a bitter bunch. That said, I’m glad to have them in MLS so we can renew the time honored tradition of beating them.
The answer(s) to your question is complicated and the following is my best guess.
In Seattle’s case I think MLS was looking for the right ownership/stadium scenario. In the 2000’s Seattle built Safeco and Qwest Fields and turned down a proposed rebuild of Key Arena, thereby losing the Sonics. There was 0 chance of any funding for a new soccer stadium in that environment. MLS stayed away since it was understandably focused on building new stadiums in the pursuit of financial sustainability after the early high-rent years.
Other than Starfire (Sounders training facility/USOC preliminaries site, seats <5000) there were no good options in the area besides Qwest, which seemed too big given MLS's history in NFL stadiums and the loss of revenue when renting. The Qwest option became viable, however, when Paul Allen emerged as a possible co-owner. With him onboard the financials made sense. Qwest's proximity to downtown (and a short walk from my own office, as an example) should have made it an obvious win, but I don't think anyone expected it to be as successful an endeavor as it's been.
As for Portland, I think the support has always been clear, but the facility was inadequate and the market small. Until they could kick out baseball and (re)build a nice little facility of their own it was a no-go (and it very nearly didn't happen). Even so I think MLS would have gone elsewhere if a larger market had a compelling combination of stadium and ownership group. The immediate success of the MLS Sounders, though, made it clear the PNW had something new (well, old, really) to offer the league and Portland clearly benefited from that realization by league officials. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0SPsHP2ORY)
Vancouver's picture is a little less clear. Their academy is excellent and their USL team was very good. Given the quality of their organization and their solid history and large market (potentially drawing all of western Canada and down into Bellingham, WA) I think it seemed low risk for MLS to issue them a franchise. However it seems something was lost in the support since the NASL years. I'm given the impression that they are rebuilding as supporters. But I have no doubt they'll be a (very) successful MLS team and that the fans will catch up to the team itself in short order.
One final comment–given the team names, logos, and locations, of early MLS teams it seems likely the league was trying to dissociate itself from the NASL even though in the PNW (and NY, among possible others) it had certainly achieved some success. In addition to my above comments I think our corner of the continent was overlooked partially because it didn't fit the vision of MLS as the anti-NASL. As the league stabilizes it has the luxury of revisiting that era without risk of being identified with its failures. It's ironic, then, that the success of MLS 3.0 would seem at this point to be largely defined by the return of 3 NASL-identified teams.
They’re soccer people, not business folks. They think market means, “lots of people”, not “lots of people interested in your product”. That last part is kind of important . . . .
If you wanna be strict about it than a “Derby” only exists between teams from Derby county. Don’t combine righteous indignation and historical ignorance.
You proved it we are fake, because we didn’t want to watch minor league soccer. Guess that means every other town is fake as well, because they weren’t as loyal.
Seattle is “fake” because they went for around 4,000 to 30,000 overnight. Portland is “organic” because they have been adding supporters every year. They packed 17,000+ into PGE Park for something like 5 games last year. Did Seattle have that many showing up in 2008?
Sounders fans set the supporter bar super high with their elite ability to buy scarfs, yell Seattle sounders for 90 minutes, and going from who cares about soccer to being diehards in just over two years.
Mariners attendance numbers are actually higher than you would expect considering how bad they’ve been for 5+ years. Also do not even try to insinuate the fans had anything to do with the sonics leaving, if you think that then you are a moron.
They preferred to enter traditional big markets instead of following markets that actually like soccer. I have no idea why they would not want to absorb established fans instead of trying to create new fans.
First, the promo uses a guy who equates Sounders-Timbers games with the birth of a child but then doesn’t give us even a tidbit of the history. What the hell is that?! And second, turf fields are not real fields!
I started dragging my Seattle friends out to Timbers games in 2002. They loved it, and were bummed that nothing like that existed in Seattle. I am glad that (a) they have an atmosphere that they can enjoy now; and (b) I no longer have to explain the offsides rule.
I love how Timber fans call Sounder fans customers, WTF do you morons want? You want them to average 5k a game so they relocate? You want MLS to fold, that´s why you dont want new fans??
Not entirely our (sounders fans) fault, when we came into the league we made the rest of the league’s crowds look absolutely pathetic. Thus there is natural resentment already cause ESPN, FSC etc. were giving us props for actually having fans show up.
Utah was part of the Spanish Crown longer than it has been part of the United States so how about quitting this tired old Real Salt Lake comments until you learn some history.
As evidenced by this thread (among others), if there’s anything more insufferable than a Sounders fan it’s a Timbers fan. And I say that as a proud SSFC season ticket holder…
Rose City futbol fans, a couple Timbers Army faithful are the founding fathers of American Outlaws Portland. Visit us on FB at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/American-Outlaws-Portland/203154356390080
Ummm, I hate to break this to you because you seem so happy in clueless-ville
but it was Portland that didn’t draw in NASL. Vancouver and Seattle were almost always at the top of attendance figures.
Agreed, I jumped on the Sounder bandwagon in 1981.
He is part owner, but he was made part owner so that the other owners wouldn’t have to pay rent for Qwest. Paul Allen had the chance to bring soccer to Seattle from 1996-2008 and did nothing.
The brain drain has stunted their reasoning skills as a mass.
Yeah, everyone knows that the participants in the “North West Derby” — Liverpool and Manchester United — are from the same city.
Hate Sounders. Drew Carey betrayed his home town. When Seattle went to MLS it ruined Clevelands USL 2 Championship team. F*&% Off Seattle and Drew Carey, you’re scum. Go Timbers!!!
+1.
I scrolled through all of these comments to see if anyone else would note that. I thought that comment was hilarious. Guess I’m not the only soccer fan/grammer nazi on board here.
Ugh are we really all relinquished to a message board rivalry?
My uncle from P*rtscum has been sending me trash talk texts all day that have more substance that the previous 90 posts.
This whole corporate vs organic argument is stupid. Seattle has more of everything because we have more fans. Portland wouldn’t be in the league without us, but yes, our hardcore/supporter base isn’t as large as the TA. Whatever.
Overall, the rivalry looks like this:
Sounders – 35 wins
Timbers – 21 wins
Where it counts, we put the hurt on you. I would resort to bragging about fans too, that is, if I supported a team that can’t get it done on the pitch.
In France, I usually see “le classique.” On the French version of Wikipedia, PSG-OM isn’t listed as one of the possible regional derbies in the country.
Qwest/SSFC: majority owner is ex-chairman of 20th Century Fox and Walt Disney Studios. Other owners are a businessman whose family owns a feather-bed company, a co-founder of Microsoft, and Drew Carey.
Timbers: Owner is the son of the former Secretary of the freaking Treasury, who was a stakeholder himself at least as of 2008.
I support a team ultimately owned by the 39th-richest man in America, whose holdings worldwide include many millions of dollars in real estate and entertainment facilities, oil and railroad companies, and, er, other stuff. Our stadium is named after the largest do-it-yourself chain in the country.
In other words, the corporate/”authentic” debate is crap when we’re talking MLS teams, at least the ones on the U.S. West Coast. All our ticket money goes to greedy oligarchs and capitalist pig overlords, but we enjoy the soccer so that’s cool.
I can think of only one solution. Who is louder on sat night. As a spokanite (google it dickworm) I will be tearing my vocal cords to shreds in favor of the blue, of the blue, and the green, and the green
Very well put sir.
Whole Foods is COR POR RAAATE!!
With that being said, when I root, I root for the Timbers.
+1100
1977-1982 Sounders vs. Timbers attendance in NASL. Attendance waxes and wanes. Enough said.
http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?page_id=496
Never mind the fact that the owner of the Seahawks is also a part owner of the Sounders. That fact is a bit too inconvenient.
Quest and JW are both good facilities. Both share their space with throw-ball teams. Both have a good environment for the fans. I’d take either over many of the stadia in MLS.
9/10ths of the bs talking points about Seattle being “corporate” and “fake” were started by Timbers fans during the interim after Seattle joined MLS. What other group than the Timbers fanbase would start a competition to celebrate whatever club scored the most goals against a specific team in a given year?
Portland fans on the whole are a bitter bunch. That said, I’m glad to have them in MLS so we can renew the time honored tradition of beating them.
The answer(s) to your question is complicated and the following is my best guess.
In Seattle’s case I think MLS was looking for the right ownership/stadium scenario. In the 2000’s Seattle built Safeco and Qwest Fields and turned down a proposed rebuild of Key Arena, thereby losing the Sonics. There was 0 chance of any funding for a new soccer stadium in that environment. MLS stayed away since it was understandably focused on building new stadiums in the pursuit of financial sustainability after the early high-rent years.
Other than Starfire (Sounders training facility/USOC preliminaries site, seats <5000) there were no good options in the area besides Qwest, which seemed too big given MLS's history in NFL stadiums and the loss of revenue when renting. The Qwest option became viable, however, when Paul Allen emerged as a possible co-owner. With him onboard the financials made sense. Qwest's proximity to downtown (and a short walk from my own office, as an example) should have made it an obvious win, but I don't think anyone expected it to be as successful an endeavor as it's been.
As for Portland, I think the support has always been clear, but the facility was inadequate and the market small. Until they could kick out baseball and (re)build a nice little facility of their own it was a no-go (and it very nearly didn't happen). Even so I think MLS would have gone elsewhere if a larger market had a compelling combination of stadium and ownership group. The immediate success of the MLS Sounders, though, made it clear the PNW had something new (well, old, really) to offer the league and Portland clearly benefited from that realization by league officials. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0SPsHP2ORY)
Vancouver's picture is a little less clear. Their academy is excellent and their USL team was very good. Given the quality of their organization and their solid history and large market (potentially drawing all of western Canada and down into Bellingham, WA) I think it seemed low risk for MLS to issue them a franchise. However it seems something was lost in the support since the NASL years. I'm given the impression that they are rebuilding as supporters. But I have no doubt they'll be a (very) successful MLS team and that the fans will catch up to the team itself in short order.
One final comment–given the team names, logos, and locations, of early MLS teams it seems likely the league was trying to dissociate itself from the NASL even though in the PNW (and NY, among possible others) it had certainly achieved some success. In addition to my above comments I think our corner of the continent was overlooked partially because it didn't fit the vision of MLS as the anti-NASL. As the league stabilizes it has the luxury of revisiting that era without risk of being identified with its failures. It's ironic, then, that the success of MLS 3.0 would seem at this point to be largely defined by the return of 3 NASL-identified teams.
All hail the King!
They’re soccer people, not business folks. They think market means, “lots of people”, not “lots of people interested in your product”. That last part is kind of important . . . .
Your trophy case tells the tale.. dust
Everyone with a brain in Portland has moved to Seattle. There’s jobs here.
No one likes us, we don’t care!
If you wanna be strict about it than a “Derby” only exists between teams from Derby county. Don’t combine righteous indignation and historical ignorance.
It makes Qwest a field built by a city willing to invest in an actual stadium.
i see white people
Considering that this is where Timber Joey spends the off-season, I think they’ll have no trouble working him into the act…
http://www.lumberjackscampground.com
You proved it we are fake, because we didn’t want to watch minor league soccer. Guess that means every other town is fake as well, because they weren’t as loyal.
The “chopping the tree down” goal celebration was awesome
Just be happy Dike is hurt. Seattle had no answer for him last year. Man among boys.
Man I can’t wait till he gets back.
I for one cursed much less at my kids birth.
And drank a bit less (I had a bad cold and was hopped up on cough syrup w/codeine).
Other than that – Identical.
Don’t hate me because I am beautiful.
The guy who compared seattle fans to mexico fans has gone way to far. No team in MLS has fans that bad.
Sounds like I need to try some new breweries.
Seattle is “fake” because they went for around 4,000 to 30,000 overnight. Portland is “organic” because they have been adding supporters every year. They packed 17,000+ into PGE Park for something like 5 games last year. Did Seattle have that many showing up in 2008?
Sounders fans set the supporter bar super high with their elite ability to buy scarfs, yell Seattle sounders for 90 minutes, and going from who cares about soccer to being diehards in just over two years.
Mariners attendance numbers are actually higher than you would expect considering how bad they’ve been for 5+ years. Also do not even try to insinuate the fans had anything to do with the sonics leaving, if you think that then you are a moron.
They preferred to enter traditional big markets instead of following markets that actually like soccer. I have no idea why they would not want to absorb established fans instead of trying to create new fans.
First, the promo uses a guy who equates Sounders-Timbers games with the birth of a child but then doesn’t give us even a tidbit of the history. What the hell is that?! And second, turf fields are not real fields!
I started dragging my Seattle friends out to Timbers games in 2002. They loved it, and were bummed that nothing like that existed in Seattle. I am glad that (a) they have an atmosphere that they can enjoy now; and (b) I no longer have to explain the offsides rule.
And please remind what happened in the post season
At least we have a past
Not they don’t we know Portland always found away to choke whether or not they were playing Seattle.
Entertaining video.. Would love to see that tradition on the east coast corridor.
How did MLS wait so long to get teams in these markets? Among other questionable decisions that has to be at the top.
Tampa Bay Mutiny?
I love how Timber fans call Sounder fans customers, WTF do you morons want? You want them to average 5k a game so they relocate? You want MLS to fold, that´s why you dont want new fans??
Get a brain and a road win before you talk crap.
Not entirely our (sounders fans) fault, when we came into the league we made the rest of the league’s crowds look absolutely pathetic. Thus there is natural resentment already cause ESPN, FSC etc. were giving us props for actually having fans show up.
Not so fast. TA is making friends with other supporter groups around MLS, but it seems that Seattle is universally hated.
Utah was part of the Spanish Crown longer than it has been part of the United States so how about quitting this tired old Real Salt Lake comments until you learn some history.
As evidenced by this thread (among others), if there’s anything more insufferable than a Sounders fan it’s a Timbers fan. And I say that as a proud SSFC season ticket holder…