Seattle Sounders Should Not Hurt Selves To Help Philadelphia Union
by Dave Clark on May 17, 2011 5:44 PM PDT
in Sounders: Friendlies
Email
PrintThis summer Major League Soccer is organizing another big round of extraordinary friendlies throughout the USA. One of those fell apart, and now the Philadelphia Union want to take part. Good on them. They aren't competing in outside tournaments, and they should do their money grab if that's what they and their fans want.
What should not happen is to put the Seattle Sounders in a worse situation in October. MLS went with lighter schedules in September and October for its teams that may partake in the CONCACAF Champions League Group Stage. Seattle is one of those teams, and a team that should be headed into the MLS Cup Playoffs. Adding a game during that stretch harms the chances for Seattle in both of those competitions.
While Philly may not be concerned with winning trophies at this time, but Seattle certainly is. Please Adrian and co, don't hurt your own chances to help that club make money.
#TrophiesNotFriendlies especially not the other team's friendly.
28 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can the Sounders demand compensation for a rescheduling of the match?
Like, maybe $50,000 in allocation dollars?
isnt qwest pretty much booked in october
im pretty sure every weekend is booked with either huskies, seahawks or sounders.
and we cant do midweek games due to open cup and CCL.
and it would not be fair to us to have to change stadiums just to fit a friendly
Have them come play on Sunday or Friday
If they have a problem with that they shouldn’t have scheduled a friendly for the day they already have a game. I fail to see how this is our problem. Its not like they are going to be playing a meaningful game. Its Peter Nowak’s problem with how he manages his players and their game time. If he has a problem with that forfeit. I’ll gladly take the 3 points. Sorry if I don’t feel anything about the Union’s cash grab. I understand how it may benefit the MLS and exposure but as a Sounders fan I personally don’t care. But its not going to happen that way and MLS will find a way to move our game. Just make sure that when we need a game moved for our championship run in the CCL that the favor is returned.
by Colin Johnson on May 17, 2011 10:00 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm happy if they want to keep the 1st team in Philly
And send the reserves to play the Sounders at Quest.
by Dizzo on May 17, 2011 10:40 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Our schedule is probably more congested on July 23rd than it is on October 8th
Two weeks before and after July 23rd:
July 10th — at Portland
July 16th — Colorado
July 20th — Manchester United (friendly)
July 23rd — Philly
July 26-28th — CCL prelim game
July 30th — at Houston
Aug 2-4th — CCL prelim game
Aug 6th — at KC
That’s 7.5 games, counting the friendly as half a game. Taking a break on the 23rd would also allow a week from the friendly to get ready for the first CCL prelim game.
Two weeks before and after Oct 8th:
Sep 24th — at Vancouver
Oct 1st — vs Revs
Oct 4th — USOC final date (hasn’t this been subject to change in the past?)
Oct 15th — San Jose
Oct 18-20th — Potential CCL Group game
Oct 22nd — at Chivas
That’s 4 games, maybe 6. As much as I love the idea of the Sounders in the USOC Final again, it takes 3 straight wins and it’s no guarantee. There’s also no guarantee that we make the CCL group stage. And I don’t really like the idea of a full two weeks with no competitive games in October, it seems like a good way to throw off a team’s rhythm right before the playoffs. If there’s a D2 football game on October 8th, I say play Friday, Oct. 7th and paint the throwball lines on the field overnight.
Counting the friendly as half a game, if they made the switch, the Sounders would have 6.5 games over 29 days around July 23rd and 5-7 games over 29 days around October 8th, the most likely number being 6. It seems like a switch would kind of balance the schedule out. We could be at more of a disadvantage in the Philly game, but we ought to be better off in the CCL prelim game (which is part of a 2-game knockout tie in an international tournament, so probably more important than the Philly game.)
I think everyone realizes if they can't get Qwest, they can't move the game
No one is going to refund and turn away a paying customer, let alone thousands of them, especially since they’d be turning away season ticket holders.
Switching venues would be a PR nightmare
Season ticket holders would probably be okay with a change of date, but not a change of venue. No way they would alienate that many fans over another team’s friendly.
Qwest Field 10/8/11
Central Washington Univ. Vs. Western Oregon Univ. “Battle in Seattle IX”
I think Central Washington is the one that gets screwed here
They don’t have the clout of the Huskies or the Seahawks. I get the feeling that they’ll be bumped if SUM wants the Union friendly to happen. Sucks to be them.
One other thing to consider...
July 23 is supposed to be one of the three dates that Sounders will play at Qwest on grass.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 18, 2011 10:02 AM PDT reply actions
This means the grass has likely already been paid for
Why not just move the match to July 24? Philly wants the money, we want the points. Seems a fair trade to me…
Nos audietis in somniis
Nos audietis in altum
by Seattle Coug on May 18, 2011 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
MLS is single entity...
…so the game will get moved. If I recall, SUM revenues are distributed among MLS teams, so the Sounders ownership group also stand to gain from a Real Madrid friendly.
Friendly revenues are not evenly split
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Then how would the Sounders benefit?
by LoiteringWithIntent on May 18, 2011 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: SUM...
It’s a “separate” organization that puts on big friendlies and organizes the US Soccer matches (think USA-Mexico). Each MLS owner is also a part of SUM. Revenues may not be ‘evenly’ split—if you control the venue you stand to gain extra. But they would benefit.
MLS may be made up of a host of different operators, but ultimately it’s more of a single organization than, say, the NBA, NHL or NFL.
The Sounders would expect to gain a lot more
from 3 points than from their share of friendly revenue from another team.
The league may move it anyway without the Sounders approval, or the Sounders may approve to be good citizens, but they won’t do it because they ‘stand to gain’.
Nos Audietis
Think of it like this...
MLS is moving the game, and the Sounders and Union are both part of that organization.
Imagine my department is told I have to cut one head
because the savings will let us work on some other projects somewhere else that might be good for the company. Like I said, you could agree to a be a good citizen (employee, co-monopolist, or whatever), but it’s a net loss.
Nos Audietis
Hanauer:
“We’ll probably wait to comment on that, but we are a single-entity structure as a league, which means that we, within reason, try to work together to do what’s best for the league and the game in general. But the specifics of whether there’s a potential game in Philadelphia or a game being moved, we’ll wait to comment specifically on that.”
“…we are this single-entity structure for better or worse, and I think the positives outweigh the negatives in general.”
I'm not sure your point
We all agree it’s a single-entity league. That doesn’t mean every part of the entity needs to be happy about how it works.
In any case, it’s now looking like the Sounders maybe do stand to gain, as this will free up some time to travel to Panama.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 18, 2011 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Both are true
Odd little thing
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
