Cascadia Cup: ECS Sells Out Away-Ticket Allotment In 28 Minutes
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 8, 2011 10:13 PM PDT
in Sounders: MLS Regular Season
Email
Print
With two months until the match, ECS needed just 28 minutes to sell out their allotment of 430 tickets for the Seattle Sounders' away match against the Portland Timbers on July 10. The tickets were sold as part of a package that also included bus travel to the Jeld-Wen Field and were made available to ECS members only. Each member was allowed to buy just one ticket per membership and they were sold on a first-come, first-serve basis.
"I thought that more people would balk at the tickets being coupled and then we'd have to adjust in a week or after a few days," ECS co-President Keith Hodo said. "I think that our selling out so many tickets so quickly indicates that the demand is there. Remember, we only sold our allocation to ECS members, so who knows how many people from the general public would want to go and they can't."
In addition to the 430 tickets sold through ECS, other Sounders supporters groups distributed 70 more. Gorilla FC distributed 45, while North End Faithful handled 25. Those two groups also sold to members only.
This week, of course, marks the official renewal of the Sounders-Timbers rivalry when the two meet as MLS teams for the first time on Saturday. The Timbers are expected to bring at least 500 of their own fans to the match.
118 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Joining the "real" supporters...
I mean, if you really want to be in the supporters section, you should probably join a supporters group. If you don’t want to be in a supporters group, there are lots of other ways to buy tickets. I get where you’re coming from, but on this issue, I agree that giving the tickets to the organized supporters groups makes a lot of sense.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 8, 2011 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I completely understand
I am going to try and go through StubHub, or the center here, and I totally recognize that supporter groups, ECS in particular, were the ones pushing hardest for increased away-ticket allocations. They deserve to support our guys, and I have no doubt they will do an exemplary job of it.
On the other hand, I have respect for what the Whitecaps are doing in opening it to all STHs. I would have liked to see a portion (50?) allocated to some random STHs, who would have a right of first refusal. Or perhaps the Alliance Council could figure out a way to give out a number to any Sounders fans. The way the FO is doing it makes a lot of sense. Yet, the feeling still persists that to participate in one of the coolest fan experiences, a Cascadia derby in your rival’s stadium, as a semi-official representative of the Sounders, I have to join a special group. S@H is my community, my supporters group, as far as I am concerned.
I’m not really that upset. More seats would have made me happy. Seats I could get simply as a STH would have made me even more happy.
I totally appreciate the sentiment...
But at some point, we need to realize that a lot of people that want to go to these games, both in Seattle and Portland are going to be turned away. Would 50 tickets distributed through the Alliance Council really make it more inclusive?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m honestly flattered you consider this your supporters group. We’d like to think of ourselves that way. But I’m also trying to be realistic about what to expect and I’m not sure what the Whitecaps did is really any better. They are forcing their fans to buy tickets through a third-party vendor in violation of the agreement they had with the other two teams.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 8, 2011 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
The Whitecaps certainly bungled it
It they had stated that as their intention from the start, and distributed the tickets themselves, I think it would have gone over much better.
One more thing about this...
I feel like a lot of people think that ECS is the only supporters group. As the story states, there were two other groups that were selling tickets. Without getting into specifics, I can tell you that it took a lot longer than 30 mins for them to sell their tickets. Anyone that wanted to go to that game and was at all interested in one of those groups could have pretty easily joined and got tickets through them.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 8, 2011 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
GFC is great
and if I was to join a group, it would probably be them. It will be interesting to see how ticket allocations evolve in the future. Was the decision on how to apportion them amongst the supporter groups based on number of members? Relative importance of the groups?
It was based on % of supporters group
I’m not sure it was exactly equal to their proportional representation, but that was roughly how they did it. So ECS is like 85 percent of the total supporters, so they got roughly 85 percent of the tickets.
And I’ll just say that if we got the sense that there was a real movement to have S@H become a formal supporters’ group, we’d at least consider it.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 9, 2011 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The first step would be assessing interest
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 9, 2011 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions
So who's interested?
I know I am. Anyone else?
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 2:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you.
I don’t know what all it entails, but it at least seems like a good way to get additional revenue for the site through dues. As for “objectivism” issues, couldn’t SaH have a pro-fact or truth clause in its bylaws, like GFC’s WE ARE ANTI-RACIST, ANTI-FACIST, ANTI-SEXIST, AND ANTI-HOMOPHOBIC, BUT PRO-PARTY!!
I don't want us to be a supporters' group.
I’m fine with us being Sounders, at heart. Don’t need a label to validate us.
by Cornchops on May 9, 2011 8:21 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
And that's an equally important opinion to hear
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 9, 2011 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions
1st reaction
Was Yeah! SoH Supporters group sounds great. But then I wondered if becoming a supporters group would compromise what this already is – the best place for Sounders news, opinion and analysis. Would it dilute the vision? Set up the possibility for us versus not us conflicts? Engender elitism? I don’t know if any of these concerns have any merit but I need what SoH now provides. It would be a nice bonus if spending lots of time here had the added benefit of getting access to Cascadia tickets and more socializing opportunities but not at the risk of compromising the primary mission.
I was wondering this too
are there supporters groups out there who also cover the game as media members? What does that do to objectivity?
We could be the supporter group that
instead of chants, rambles technical analysis on the fly, and occassionally yell “play Fucito”. And instead of fund raisers, we have random happy hour meetups. /sarcasm
Possible Chat
Our Arrow is better than your Bucket
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 9, 2011 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Our backup RB
is a better TF than your starting one? Except he isn’t a TF. Or something…. well… our guy has better facial hair than yours….
and the refs are bad, Arlo is awesome, Fucito is fast, and also awesome… and stats don’t lie → they just kinda mislead or are mostly irrelevant a lot, but they are better than memes that come from Harkes. And Sigi is kinda weird about subs.
I think that’s the real chat summary.
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You think we are objective?
If this were to ever happen we would be our web-presence first.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I think we'll see the Van FO's mistake
When we compare the energy of PDX and Van away support. Portland was always going to win that battle, but I fear Van will have a somewhat diluted supporters’ section.
by Cornchops on May 9, 2011 8:27 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
"Real Supporters"
How is ECS, given it’s membership fees really that much different than a “third party vendor”? Whitecaps supporters who don’t want to pay the vendor have the same options we “fake supporter” STH’s have- StubHub or whathave you.
And at least the Whitecap’s vendor doesn’t loudly cry out wishes of death for the opponent.
I am glad ECS exists and is loud. But really it is all a matter of what select group the FO decides should get to sell the tickets and tack a premium.
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Except
ECS, Gorilla and whoever else didn’t tack on a premium. Not to pick a fight, but you can’t honestly think that ECS is less trustworthy than a travel agent can you?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 9, 2011 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I think he’s saying the membership fee is the premium, which any of us could have paid.
by Cornchops on May 9, 2011 8:22 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I guess I get that...
I guess my main point is that with tickets as limited as they are, I’d rather them be distributed this way than put on the open market or sold through a third-party vendor with nothing but a business relationship with the team.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 9, 2011 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly my point
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
"How is ECS, given it’s membership fees really that much different than a "third party vendor"?"
ECS is not trying to turn a profit.
by Aaron Campeau on May 9, 2011 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Specifically forbidden by law from turning a profit
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I hope lack of a profit margin doesn't make a group better.
The last thing I want to hear is that San Jose and Chivas are more deserving of Allocation dollars than clubs that can turn a profit. Not quite the same, but similar enough to the line of reasoning that ECS deserves allocation vs. other 3rd party vendors because it doesn’t turn a profit.
Seems equally as persuasive to me that we shouldn’t allocate tickets to groups with political causes and political uses of dollars (GFC), instead just allocating them to the company with the best sales pitch to the FO.
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You see no difference between Not-for-profit
And for-profit entities? When the rights of local fans are being limited I find it disgusting that one would turn a profit.
Also I would love to find out what political use GFC has spent money on. This would be significant news.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 9, 2011 1:34 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I like seeing people make a profit.
especially when it comes to fans choses being limited. The more profit to be made the more likely there will be an increase in supply in the future.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
the clubs lose money by hosting away support
As it reduces the number of season tix available
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 9, 2011 1:44 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Only if it does.
Away support sold to seats that are otherwise unattainable by home fans would make money, and not lose it. This argument works only for stadiums that:
a) have a waitlist for ST’s
b) can’t expand capacity
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
choosing to open seats for away fans
That are refused to local fans tells a section of the local populace they are less important than away fans.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 9, 2011 1:58 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Maybe
But there is a distinction between a one time thing and a section that they can’t sell out constantly.
Do Husky fans take it personally that they cannot buy tickets for the Apple Cup in the WSU section? No. Why? Because it is understood that section is reserved for the visitors. They understand that a similar section will be reserved for them in Pullman the following year. This really is no different.
by B-Lot tailgater on May 9, 2011 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Where as
Not allowing away supporters to take any of the local populaces’ seats would tell the locals they are more important.
And the action on the part of the FO would be identical.
Of course I’m not sure I’d even really advocate my position- but I do see it as a reasonable one.
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
There are 20K seats
give or take they can open up. In other words they can open up enough seats for both home and away support for the derby matches. No special treatment needed.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
If this seems like such an issue
they can just open the whole deal. Or open sections as demand warrants. Then as many local fans can come as want to, and a significant number of away fans can be accommodated. I find it unlikely that Qwest would sell out vs. PDX or Van with just home support.
Are you sure they'll lose money?
Cascadia doesn’t have a big demand problem, so wouldn’t they likely be selling these seats at other matches to single game buyers who are buying the seats at a higher price? STHs probably spend much more on the team (jerseys, concessions, etc.), but single-game buyers still spend a good amount of money as well.
Don't get me wrong
I’m not saying they’ve violated their 501©3 restrictions. Or even that I in any way don’t agree with the political causes they’ve taken up. While protesting/interupting Nazi conventions, or supporting ReDCardNorthAmerica is admirable- it is also political. And costs money to support on thier website.
I’m a big fan of GFC, I’m just saying I could understand the argument that the shouldn’t get the allocation for that reason.
Also,
Not quite the same, but similar enoughis different than seeing no difference. But all said, I think I’ve unintentionally made a bigger deal of this than is warented.
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
by Little old me on May 9, 2011 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Because the money that goes into buying memberships helps pay for other things we do during games. There is a lot of cost that goes into the things we have. Having to purchase flags, repair them, replace poles, replace drum heads, buy fabric/paint/tools for any displays we do and so on.
That is the reason of the membership. This is our way of raising money for the group.
The FO/ECS/GFC/NEF is not stopping anyone from buying tickets to the PDX or VAN games. Tickets were available months ago. Now they are only tickets available on a StubHub and Craigslist. No one is not keeping you from buying those.
by ProdigalReality on May 9, 2011 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
It makes sense
But it is frustrating. I like sitting in the visitors section when I see my team on the road, but I don’t necessarily want to join a supporters group. Maybe I am just cheap.
by B-Lot tailgater on May 9, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
appeal to the Cascadia FO's and MLS to open up more seats for away support next year
the idea of opening up more seats in Qwest for away Cascadia fans was wildly unpopular outside of supporter group circles; despite that fact that this would’ve had the knock-on effect of pressuring PDX and VAN to open up more seats in their stadiums….
I certainly hope people are beginning to grasp this issue now…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on May 8, 2011 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
By wildly unpopular outside of supporters group circles
I assume you mean “wildly unpopular with the Sounders organization, and in particular Joe Roth.”
Everything I have read about the negotiations point to that conclusion anyways.
by B-Lot tailgater on May 9, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
No, at the annual meeting most attendees did not want Portland fans to have more rights than Seattle fans
And that’s what “opening up more seats for visiting supporters groups” does.
It would mean that people who root for the Sounders are forbidden from attending so a Timber fan could come. This inherent unfairness is what Joe Roth objected to.
Why should a Timbers fan be more important to the Sounders than a Sounders fan?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Why not open up more seats for everyone
if there truly is so many from both groups that want to go, then why not make it fair and open up more seats for both?
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
portland sells out
So every seat given to a Seattle fan is one denied to a Portland fan. What business would tell their customers they are less important than another business’s customers?
The large block of seats also prevent season tix being sold.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 9, 2011 1:49 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Last game I saw at PDX
they had about 10 rows around the top of the stadium tarped off. What does that say to their fans?
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
Those seats are tarped off because there is still remodeling to be done of the non-seating areas of the stadium.
They’re concerned about concourse overcrowding.
by Aaron Campeau on May 9, 2011 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
You think we would sell out Qwest for PDX
with just home support?
That’s 30k more than current capacity. I just don’t see it. I think there would be ample room for away support after a home fan ticket purchase deadline.
Obviously, this wouldn’t work at JW (is that what you were talking about?), so we can’t have an even, tit-for-tat deal. I’m not sure what the FO is so scared of, though. This seems like a great way to firmly establish Seattle as the best place to play soccer in MLS. And in a way that PDX couldn’t even match if they wanted to, since they are constrained by the size of their stadium.
Is the FO afraid of violence? That the away supporters will drown us out? The FO just sort of seems a little wimpy on this one.
There are 30k unused seats at Qwest
There is no reason they couldn’t make the effort open a section in the 300 corner for the TA. I agree Timbers fans should not get in that the expense of Sounders fans who have already bought tickets, but Joe Roths ignorance is no reason we should go against FIFA standards for away fans sections.
by B-Lot tailgater on May 9, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
there is NO FIFA standard for away support
It is unsurprising that this myth originates with Supporter Groups. But it is certainly not a standard.
What exactly is Joe Roth ignorant of? As I was actually at meetings with him discussing this issue.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 9, 2011 1:54 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The atmosphere? The fun away fans provide?
Not sure why he is so against it.
Again, half the stadium is empty. Why not bite the bullet on the small cost to open a section or two to visitors, so that in return our fans can see the Sounders on the road?
by B-Lot tailgater on May 9, 2011 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The front office logic is that Portland and Vancouver can't return the favor.
Seattle can open up thousands of extra seats for Visiting fans. Portland cannot. Vancouver cannot in their current stadium.
Why a section or two?
According to Dave there are a bunch of seattle ffans being denied the chance to go, so why not open the whole upper bowl so these fans can come too? And why assume it is a cost? More likely it is a profit since people that sit in the nose bleeds need more beer so they can see the game better.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
a "guideline" AFAIK
and thus can commence the strung out semantic argument…
not entirely sure where that 5% figure comes from BTW… and my argument for away support has never had anything to do with the 5%, but rather taking the tarps off Qwest and being able to accommodate a couple thousand PDX or VAN supporters, as well as 20000+ Sounders fans… and this pressuring VAN and PDX into allowing half that at their stadia (which would be DOUBLE the current allocation)
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on May 9, 2011 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
the difference between a requirement and recommendation is not merely semantic
violating a FIFA requirement could result in a team being forbidden from participating in FIFA events, and possibly even being stripped of its players.
The club has been quite clear that they are not going to test a maximum capacity situation with Cascadia. In fact they are testing it with the Premium 3-Pack this year. In 2012 they will make expansion based on those sales which will be a better guide of demand than year one for MLS Cascadia
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
standard vs. requirement vs. guidline
I’m not sure who is arguing that it is a requirement, and whoever is, is wrong. The terms I most often hear applied to it is “standard” or “guideline” which are more accurate.
At any rate my statement stands. I’m not sure where the “5%” comes from to begin with and it has never been a significant part of my argument…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on May 9, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
FIFA best practices I believe
FIFA has a recommendation for % of tickets for away fans. I believe the 5% is the level that FIFA deems best practices. My terminology may be off. But that is the general idea.
They already
‘tested’ the capacity thing in previous friendlies. It has also been tested at Seahawk games. The facility and staff can accommodate 67K.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
So you think Qwest would be a 67k sell-out for Sounders v Chivas USA?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
No.
Which is why I do not advocate taking the tarps off for all games. There is not that much demand unfortunately. Which is why I think the arguement that opening up seats for opposing fans is somehow telling our fans they are less important. Our fans have a chance to go to games if they want. Even now they are not sold out for the season. So if a sounder fan wants to go, then go buy a ticket, don’t complain that the sounder FO is selling tickets to non fans.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
by lysander on May 10, 2011 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Best-practice recommendation
The 5 % rule is a best-practice recommendation that comes from FIFA Club Licensing Regulations states, Article 7.4, Criterion l.14 (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/club_licensing_v4_en_33721.pdf).
The ECS and the supporter groups have been very clear that it is not a mandatory rule, but rather a best-practice recommendation. See for example this joint statement by the ECS, TA, and the Southsiders: http://www.weareecs.com/2010/5025/
ah yes, thank you for saving me from my ignorance
“recommendation” is the word of the day… it is a “recommendation”
(and btw the link does’t work)
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on May 9, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, the statement that calls for "unlimited" away fan support
Which I think is higher han 5%…
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Switching topics?
So now that I’ve demonstrated that you were incorrect in your claim that 5% is a myth, you ignore that part and argue something largely unrelated. Makes sense I guess.
The FIFA recommendation is “at least 5%”. There’s no reason it couldn’t be higher, and indeed in a lot of derbies it is much higher. Unlimited would be unpractical if not unreasonable, I give you that.
Here’s a link to the FIFA regulations that works (at least when I preview this post):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/club_licensing_v4_en_33721.pdf
You did not demonstrate that the 5% requirement/standard is a myth
You actually confirmed it.
There is an enourmous difference between a recomendation and a requirement. The effect of ignoring a FIFA requirement would be the elimination of the Sounders and their players from playing in any FIFA sanctioned events.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Away support evens out in the end
As long as the 3 teams front offices are allotting away tickets with this tit-for-tat strategy it all evens out in the end.
When you allow 1000 Portland fans to travel to Seattle, you allow 1000 Seattle fans to travel to Portland. It is an easy concept to grasp.
If the three FOs had the foresight to set this up well in advance it could be handled without hurting season ticket sales.
Each team keeps back a certain number of single game sales. The whole stadium is not filled with season ticket holders. This is true even in Seattle.
So you keep a block of 1000-2000 seats as your “away section” For most games that would be a normal 150 set aside and the rest going to single game sales. For the big games with Portland and Vancouver they would have the seats already available in that block for 1000-2000. No season ticket holders would be kicked out of their seats in this set up.
Portland said they were ready to set aside 1000 seats for the away section.
I think if we plan NOW, we can set aside this block of tickets and get the aches and pains out of the way now with moving people. Or at least start trying to get people to move STs now out of the planned away section. Better to do it now then later.
Personally, I think the away section should be in the upper deck. Very few people would be moved out of a few loge sections. The logistics would just be easier doing it this way.
Just clarifying my oritinal point
The argument is that by having an away section of 1000, you are preventing 1000 Sounders fans from attending the game.
But the reality is that by doing this you are allowing for 1000 Sounder fans to travel to our away game.
So it all evens out.
And, the seats that are being taken up would be Single Game seats.
If we create more demand for these games, hopefully hey open up more seats rather than fleecing the fans.
There is not room for 1000 Sounders fans in J-W
So it doesn’t matter. They sell-out every match. The tarped over areas are due to safety concerns in the concourses and stairwells
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The number doesn't matter
The number doesn’t matter in the point I am making.
It could be 5, 10, 20, 250, 500, 2000.
As long as the teams are reciprocating the number for the away sections then the number of home fans who are “shut out” of the home game are offset by the number of that teams fans who get to go to the away game.
430 tickets sold in 28 minutes
That’s awesome. Definitely proves that the demand is there. Probably could have sold 1,000 tix in an hour…
Can Portland supply more?
It’s easy to add at Qwest to meet demand, but I don’t think there are that many open seats at the much smaller PGE.
by blakec on May 9, 2011 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does anyone find this topic to be oddly and disproportionately contentious?
I do. Am I the problem? Or is that a sad attempt at inflating my own importance? Never can tell.
"But who would listen to Little old me anyway?"
-by thehemogoblin
Agreed
We have a big stadium with unused sections. If VAN/PDX supporters demonstrate demand, I really don’t see why Seattle wouldn’t accommodate them in an otherwise unused section(s). We can handle more away fans without displacing any of our own.
The reciprocation issue is a head fake. I think this is much more about the Cascadia FO’s being overly skittish about clashes between supporters.
by lemonverbena on May 10, 2011 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I think its more season tickets vs single game ticket sales
Priority has been and always will be season ticket sales. If you open more seats for the “big games” it diminishes the value of season tickets. People buy season tickets for a number of reasons, one of which is to guarantee their place at the big games.
I still don't see how opening up an extra section or two in the upper levels for VAN/PDX supporters diminishes the perceived value of season tickets
I understand the argument but the logic seems flawed to me.
by lemonverbena on May 10, 2011 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Here's the logic, like it or not...
If you open up those seats only for those games you are saying “we’ll expand seating for away fans, but not home fans.” In a perfect world where this isn’t a business and it’s just about trying to make everyone happy, I think we should do that. But to pretend like it’s not a big deal for the Sounders FO to only up extra sections for away fans is being a bit disingenuous about the business side of this.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
That still doesn't change the actual exclusivity of season tickets
In this scenario, Sounders fan at home or a STH watching from the lower bowl sees Portland supporters in the 300 level and…what? Wishes they could have bought a ticket in the 300 level? I don’t see a whole lot of pent-up demand for those seats, and I really don’t think selling them to a few hundred away supporters attracts from STH value. Any offense taken by fans left out of being able to buy a ticket in the nosebleeds is a fan with too delicate a sensibility. That fan had any number of alternatives for getting into the game.
by lemonverbena on May 10, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Pretending
To pretend that there are not plenty of sections available to open up for both sides is disingenuous as well.
Also to pretend that there is that much demand from sounder fans that can not get tickets is disingenuos as well.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
I'm not saying those things tho...
I’m saying that there’s a pretty clear business plan working here and that it’s built around the idea of creating scarcity. I’m not saying you have to like it, but to act like there’s no rationale for it is what bugs me.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am not opposed to it.
I have no problem with the business plan.
And I am not saying you are saying those things. I am saying you are ignoring those things which I feel counter the thing you are saying. Yes the FO might piss off some fans if they open up seats only for the opposing fans. But these fans do not seem to exist since all fans can get into games now if they want to and if it was a concern, there are more seats available that the FO could open up.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
Try and remember when Safeco hosted the all star game.
Every advertisement for season tickets mentioned you got all star game tickets with your season tickets, or at least the chance to buy them first. Big games increase the value of season tickets. If you don’t need season tickets to get into those big games why would a casual fan waste their money on the whole package.
Because if you want to go to a big game
You probably want decent tickets. How many season ticket holders do you know that would give up their tickets in exchange for nosebleed tickets to the PDX game and most of their money back?
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
come on...
You don’t think there are a significant number of fans who would rather pay less for their tickets and still get into the biggest games of the year?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Not really
Most STH I know want to go to all the games, and most people that I know that want to go to the big PDX game are the type of fans that want good seats. maybe I run in an crowd of statistical outliars? Who knows. Just does not seem like a big effect.
I think it would be outweighed by the benifit of getting a bunch of new fans into an awesome showcase game that would move them along the path of wanting to be a STH in the future.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
I tend to agree
But I’m also willing to see that the FO obviously sees it differently. If they were really convinced they could make more money by opening up more seats, I’m sure they would. but let’s not pretend that there aren’t very good business people making these decisions. We can certainly disagree with them, but let’s not act like they are devoid of logic.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
You can preface all my comments with the following statement:
’I do not have all the details and I am sure the FO is making the smartest business decision with more facts than me, but the way i see it is:"
But I do not feel I am argueing with the FO, I am argueing against the idea that opening up more seats to away fans would piss off sounder fans. I do not really know if the FO has made that arguement. If they have then where I disagree is not with the decision they made, but rather with the excuse they give. I find it very likely that they made the right business decision based on $’s and then decided that tellign the public the real reason why would upset fans more than making a phony reason up.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
I'm guessing you think that unstated reason is 'fear'
And, you might very well be right. But, as I’ll fully articulate at some point, I refuse to judge the FOs too harshly for practicing prudence. This is the first time 36,000-plus people will be watch a Portland-Seattle soccer match and I’m OK with them wanting to see how this goes before expanding it. I’m definitely hoping they do that at some point, but I’m willing to at least give it a year or two before I start flipping out about it.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
The unstated reason
is money. I am sure they have analyzed it and decided that opening it up would cause problems with STH and overall revenue. Maybe fear too a little but overall money. So rather than tell people that they made the decision to limit sales to fans in order to make more money, they instead use an excuse that pretends they are actually trying to protect the sounder fan.
It is common political tool to pretend you are helping the people you are hurting. They are using it and I am fine with it, there team, their money, etc… I just will point out the real reason and tear down the phony arguements when I hear them repeated.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
They've actually been totally up front about that
They’ve repeatedly said that it’s a business decision.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Then I am not argueing against the FO at all
Just argueing against people that say they did it to not upset sounder fans who think they would be treated unfairly by allowing visiting fans an allocation of seats together.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
4000 package tickets sold
I find the prost article about only 4K redbull/SJ/ManU ticket packages sold interesting to this discussion. It is less than I had expected/hoped for. I was really hoping for a 67K packed stadium for the season closer and the red bull game. Does not appear likely so far.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
Not to be a contrary...
But I never saw any reason to believe that those games were going to sell out and, honestly, I don’t think even the most optimistic Sounders FO member was expecting those games to sell out during the presale. Who knows, if something is really on the line in that Earthquakes game, maybe it sells out since it’s also Kasey’s last game, but I fully expected sales of those tickets to lag somewhat. As it is, we’re seeing a perfect indication of why the Sounders didn’t open the hawks nest this season.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I agree...
I agree that it was unlikely to sell out based on demand for the quake game (or even the redbull game). I just thought more ManU fans would have rushed for the package to get good seats and am disappointed to see it not be that many. For only 100 bucks, it seems like a really good deal. I can not imagine the single game ManU ticket being much less, so I am surprised more did not take it. At this point I wonder if the Man U game will even sell out.
Not opening up more seats than they did this year in hindsight is a very wise decision that I admit was wrong about.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
I have a feeling the ManUnited Game will still sell out
and I agree it’s a pretty good deal. But if I’m only interested in ManUnited, I don’t know that I’d be willing to pay $100 to sit in the third deck.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
What is the alternative?
The third deck is all that will be available when single ticket games go on sale. So then you are left with secondary market but that will be a lot more.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
Not sure I'm following
The alternative is to wait for the presale to end and buy tickets for ManUnited only, which will probably cost $65-85. if you figure those tickets for the SJ and NYRB games are going to cost $15 apiece and you have no interest in using them, and believe you’ll be able to buy tickets for the ManUnited game without buying them, it doesn’t seem that odd that people would choose to wait for the presale to end. As it stands now, fewer people have bought tickets for the ManUnited game than did for the Celtic game last year. I have no doubt that ManUnited will be far closer to a sellout than that game was.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I am guessing the 100 package tickets
will sell for 85 for just the single man u game. All i am saying is if I was a man U fan I would rather pay 100 bucks to get the extra tickets because even if I did not use them, I at least get a lower bowl ticket rather than wait, save 15 bucks but end up at the top of the upper bowl.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
But if they've sold 4,000 tickets...
It probably stands to reason that there are no more lower bowl seats left since most of them were already held by STHs.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 10, 2011 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
oops. Meant to say
Lower upper bowl. In other wrods the people that got the 4K packages are getting the better tickets in the upper bowl. Those that wait get the seats up higher in the upper bowl.
Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
