View Full Version : The Maps 3 rundown...



Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 07:29 AM
First, read this report:
http://www.sportkc.org/news/documents/SoccerFinalReport9-29-05.pdf

Now, consider the following developments going forward.

1. Soccer Specific Stadium on the river near the newly renovated I-40, acommpanied with 10-15 youth fields.

-Uses include:
-Major League Soccer
-Youth tournaments
-Concerts
-High School football state championships
-High School soccer state championships

2. Zoning and legalization for up to 3 casino hotels on the river.

3. An artfully-done retail complex bringing the two areas together.

Easy180
02-07-2007, 08:41 AM
I like the casino and retail center ideas...Not so hip on the soccer stadium, but might be just cause I can't stand the sport

CuatrodeMayo
02-07-2007, 08:57 AM
I think this belongs on the Edmond board...:tiphat:

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 09:01 AM
absolutely not. Wantland should only serve as an MLS facility for the short term. the City needs a beautiful showcase stadium along the River.

jbrown84
02-07-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm not opposed to a stadium, but I don't think that we should use a huge swath of land for kids soccer fields in such a prime area. There's plenty of room in the 'burbs.

traxx
02-07-2007, 09:43 AM
This is a football state not a futbol state. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I just don't see MLS being successful in the US let alone in Oklahoma. There's still no guarantee that Beckham can save MLS in this country. Why would we want to jump aboard a sinking ship. Why not go with something that's proved it's success over several decades like the NBA.

TStheThird
02-07-2007, 10:23 AM
Save the MLS? Sinking Ship? Traxx, stick to commenting on subjects you understand. The MLS is in a period of strong growth. They just signed a revenue producing TV contract. The teams finally have their own stadiums... they are finally making money off of their stadiums. Teams are picking up good sponsorship contracts. League wide attendance is increasing.

The MLS will continue to grow. It will never be as popular as American football, but it will make good profits in the long run. Edmond, Norman, and Tulsa are fairly big soccer communities. The MLS could work in OK. Where is the pioneer spirit? At one time, the NFL, MLB, NBA were all young leagues. They all had slow starts and eventually became big money producers.

I think there are problems with the MLS and there are things I would change, but that is a different discussion for a different day. I could see an MLS stadium built along the river being a success, but I am not a fan of huge land use for multiple youth fields. On the other hand, I could support that in the right location, south of the river.

scotplum
02-07-2007, 10:37 AM
I'd love to see the MLS in Oklahoma. Unfortunately, I think public opinion against soccer will probably deter that from happening.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 01:03 PM
There really is no reason why the MLS would not work in OKC as a viable summertime sporting option. The demographics are there, the money is there, it just needs to be put into place.

In case you didn't notice, Oklahoma ranked 29th of all states in the number of registered players with U.S. Youth Soccer, which is very significant given the state's population.

I really don't understand these concerns about the youth fields as taking up "prime real estate." Put the stadium right on the river on the Southern side, and put the fields south of the stadium...plenty of room for other developments.

okcitian
02-07-2007, 01:09 PM
Its true that Soccer popularity is on the rise. A nice MLS team around downtown will make it nice but i'm not sure if it will ever happen. Youth tournaments around the stadium will make the place look like a suburb or some European cities since they place these soccer parks near thier downtowns or dense areas.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 01:11 PM
Yes, this facility would look very upscale and would be a sensational and beautiful addition to the city. If the stadium were built at a slight diagonal angle on the river where the skyline would be visible from the ends (the large roof structure for shade would obstruct a skyline view in a north-south arrangement), this would be ideal.

jbrown84
02-07-2007, 01:17 PM
I really don't understand these concerns about the youth fields as taking up "prime real estate." Put the stadium right on the river on the Southern side, and put the fields south of the stadium...plenty of room for other developments.

You said nothing about it being south of the River before. Everything else has been talked about for Core to Shore, which is north of the river.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 01:27 PM
ah well, I was not familiar with there being a distinction between things North and South of the river, I just thought both sides would be developed.

since Core to Shore does not include South of the River, then perhaps a bridge could be constructed to adjoin the northern developments with the south. this really could propel OKC into another dimension.

jbrown84
02-07-2007, 01:36 PM
Yes, that's not a bad idea. There is already the Mat Hoffman Skate Park on the south side and the former Downtown Airpark is to be developed by Kirk and Grant Humphreys. The problem would be how much land would need to be acquired to build all that.

traxx
02-07-2007, 01:52 PM
Save the MLS? Sinking Ship? Traxx, stick to commenting on subjects you understand. The MLS is in a period of strong growth. They just signed a revenue producing TV contract. The teams finally have their own stadiums... they are finally making money off of their stadiums. Teams are picking up good sponsorship contracts. League wide attendance is increasing.

The MLS will continue to grow. It will never be as popular as American football, but it will make good profits in the long run. Edmond, Norman, and Tulsa are fairly big soccer communities. The MLS could work in OK. Where is the pioneer spirit? At one time, the NFL, MLB, NBA were all young leagues. They all had slow starts and eventually became big money producers.

I think there are problems with the MLS and there are things I would change, but that is a different discussion for a different day. I could see an MLS stadium built along the river being a success, but I am not a fan of huge land use for multiple youth fields. On the other hand, I could support that in the right location, south of the river.

Revenue producing and profitable are two very different things. If MLS is in such a great place, then why did I see headlines asking if David Beckham could save MLS? Are they all as misinformed as I am.

Speaking of pioneer spirit, if memory serves, didn't we have a team in that pioneer league of the USFL. Let's be smart about where we want to pioneer in the future.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 02:10 PM
traxx, there is no reason we can't have the NBA in the fall/winter and the MLS in the spring/summer. they actually compliment each other well in that respect.

did you read the Kansas City market evaluation for the MLS? if you did, you would have seen that Oklahoma has more youth soccer players than either Kansas or Missouri, that our state's cost of living and income factors would figure very nicely, and that our hispanic population is probably at least double that of Kansas or Missouri.

this idea that the MLS wouldn't work because Oklahoma is a "football state" is largely (and unfortunately I believe) rooted in ignorance. people were saying the same thing about the NBA, and look how well that has gone over.

the MLS will offer great spring and summer entertainment at prices that are easily the best deal in all of professional sports. people would buy into it, especially if a new facility were constructed on the river among these new developments as I have suggested. the MLS has been around since 1995 and is indeed growing each and every year. that league isn't going anywhere, nor should it given the nation's demographics. why not be a "pioneer" in something that will continue to grow and become a cornerstone of a burgeoning opportunity?

Easy180
02-07-2007, 02:30 PM
Well I can tell you we definitely aren't a big soccer state since our two major universities team's get zero press while football and basketball get major coverage....I wouldn't assume that just because we have a good amount of youth players that their parents would then turn around and buy season tix in mass...There are large amounts of youth bowlers in Oklahoma and you can imagine how many parents watch the 50 yr old guys in leisure suits on ESPN2

My guess is many of those parents enjoy watching their kids play, but watch very little to no soccer outside of that...I don't know a single person that watches MLS games

Know a lot of people who watched NBA before we had the Hornets and they have turned out in large numbers to see NBA stars on the visiting teams...Not so much when a star goalie is coming in from D.C.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 02:38 PM
Negative, negative, negative. Can't, can't, can't. This crap from all of you soccer naysayers is seriously old hat. You think the Wake Forest, Ohio State, Duke, and North Carolina soccer programs garner significant media coverage relative to other college sports? Come on.

And yes, were either of the major university's teams to make a run for a national championship, then there would be media coverage from all outlets.

I wonder why you don't know anybody who watches MLS in OKC at present? Why would they? What interest would they have? That comparison to bowling was completely disingenuous and absurd.

If you don't think that 10-15,000 people would turn out for MLS matches in the spring and summer along the River, then there clearly isn't any reasoning with you. Cheap tickets, a good entertainment product, a growing national league of the world's most popular sport, and a great new facility on the river. People will show up in droves.

BDP
02-07-2007, 02:46 PM
If you don't like the MLS, you don't have to go to a game, but the possibility of it as an OKC stadium tennant is what can be used to get a large outdoor multi-use facility downtown. If done correctly, it would in no way be exclusively an MLS stadium. Many other sporting and entertainment events could be accomodated with such a facility. These events would, as of now, have to skip or overlook OKC. However, the possibility of the MLS as a tennant greatly increases the feasability and ROI of any proposed facility.

I'd probably take my family to a couple of games, just to hang out on a nice day, but I am not a soccer fan. However, if the metro area is going to have MLS, you want to the facility to be built downtown, trust me. If we go the way of the 70s and build one in the burbs, doing it again downtown at a later date would only saturate the market and make both facilties less profitable and may even slow down the possibilty of building one in OKC altogether.

If you want a stadium downtown at all, you should support the MLS concept as a means to an end, not as the end itself.

metro
02-07-2007, 02:47 PM
Theo, whats so new on this MAPS 3 "rundown". These topics have already been discussed in the existing MAPS 3 threads. Just FYI in case your in the know......

traxx
02-07-2007, 02:48 PM
Theo, I'm not saying that we can't have two professional sports, I'm just questioning that second sport being soccer. I gotta agree with Easy on this one. Youth leagues does not necesarrily translate into pent up demand for MLS.

The reason many said NBA wouldn't work here was a money thing. They thought that not enough people had the money to buy NBA tickets and season tickets. With MLS it's an interest thing and I think you would be hard pressed to find enough interests in pro soccer in OKC to support a team and justify a new stadium. I just don't want OKC to jump on this and then not be able to support it so we have a big stadium downtown going to waste for most weekends out of the year (I realize it could be used for other things sometimes).

And I don't buy the argument that the idea of it not working in Oklahoma is rooted in ignorance. Just because people don't like a particular sport or like another one better doesn't mean they're ignorant. I know, Europe is the Mac to the US's PC, everything Europe does is cool, so if they are so nuts over soccer then us ignorant Americans must be missing something.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 02:49 PM
Yup. It needs to be right on the river as part of a larger complex...i.e. casinos, retail, and upscale residential to the north. It would add an incredible amount of class to the city and would be a defining touchstone for the future.

Think about something like this...


http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p286/OilCanBoyd99/jjbstadium4.jpg

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 02:51 PM
--

Easy180
02-07-2007, 02:56 PM
Negative, negative, negative. Can't, can't, can't. This crap from all of you soccer naysayers is seriously old hat. You think the Wake Forest, Ohio State, Duke, and North Carolina soccer programs garner significant media coverage relative to other college sports? Come on.

And yes, were either of the major university's teams to make a run for a national championship, then there would be media coverage from all outlets.

I wonder why you don't know anybody who watches MLS in OKC at present? Why would they? What interest would they have? That comparison to bowling was completely disingenuous and absurd.

If you don't think that 10-15,000 people would turn out for MLS matches in the spring and summer along the River, then there clearly isn't any reasoning with you. Cheap tickets, a good entertainment product, a growing national league of the world's most popular sport, and a great new facility on the river. People will show up in droves.

Didn't say anything about getting coverage compared to football and basketball...There is no need to use the term relative to as they get zero coverage regardless of how good they are...If so many people are already interested in soccer wouldn't it be safe to assume the media would catch on?

Used the bowling reference to counter your assumption that just because there are many youth players in soccer doesn't necessarily mean it would translate to sellouts...Not trying to be rude, but I think with scores of 2-1 and 3-2 that many may find the product as entertaining as bowling...A nice stadium only goes so far if many people are bored with the product

15,000 people may show up at the beginning, but the cynic in me doesn't think a pro soccer team in Okla could sustain that over many years...Football, basketball yes....Baseball possibly...Soccer no

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 03:03 PM
You obviously aren't familiar with how successful the Tulsa Roughnecks were. Of course that league went bankrupt, but the MLS has managed itself remarkably well over the years and is growing.

What isn't sustainable about cheap tickets and good family entertainment?

BTW, a 3-2 game is more exciting than you would think. And please stop with the bowling crap. Only NBA players can compare with soccer players in terms of sheer athletic ability. Bowling, baseball, and yes, even American football players have nothing on the athleticism of soccer players.

BDP
02-07-2007, 03:10 PM
I just don't want OKC to jump on this and then not be able to support it so we have a big stadium downtown going to waste for most weekends out of the year (I realize it could be used for other things sometimes).

It would be as much of a waste as the Ford Center was. The MLS would make it even less of a waste. It doesn't have to be at capacity every time it's used either for it to be worthwhile. Festivals, concerts, local sporting events like polo, football, rugby, tennis, etc could all benefit and add excitement to the area as well as the events themselves. Sure these things can be accommodated on a smaller scale, but why not build it for the occasional large event or permanent major/mid-major tenant as well?

Think of it as a community entertainment complex, not just an MLS stadium. It could be the center piece for all of Oklahoma’s major outdoor events, right here in downtown OKC, and next to the river, it could be the center piece of a much bigger outdoor park and recreation area that would be the envy of the region. Think about a city with a large central park area with boat races, cross country events, professional and semi-pro competitions, biking and running trails all with a signature stadium as its epicenter giving the whole thing validity, cohesiveness, and purpose. If built as the people’s stadium, and not just an MLS stadium, IMO, that would significantly improve Oklahoma City's quality of life for its citizens, all while making it much more competitive in the lifestyle options that so often is the deciding factor in where businesses locate and where people go to start their lives.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Couldn't have made the argument better myself. When built south of the river yet connected via a bridge to the Core to Shore area, this will definitely add to the city's quality of life.

We have got to dream big here and think big picture, folks. Three major resort casinos to the north of the river, a retail area adjacent to the casinos, and a bridge/walkway across the river to the soccer complex/park. I love the idea of having biking and running trails through it as well.

traxx
02-07-2007, 03:20 PM
You obviously aren't familiar with how successful the Tulsa Roughnecks were. Of course that league went bankrupt, but the MLS has managed itself remarkably well over the years and is growing.

What isn't sustainable about cheap tickets and good family entertainment?

BTW, a 3-2 game is more exciting than you would think. And please stop with the bowling crap. Only NBA players can compare with soccer players in terms of sheer athletic ability. Bowling, baseball, and yes, even American football players have nothing on the athleticism of soccer players.

First, I don't care how cheap the tickets are that doesn't = entertainment. I wouldn't go even if it were free. I betcha there's alot of others that feel that way too. More so than would pay to see MLS week in and week out over a season. So the prospect of several seasons is out of the question. Yes, I'll grant you there may be some interest at first because it's something new but after the new has worn off it won't be sustainable.

Of course I should have realized how laughable your arguments were when you posted that little gem about soccer players being so much more athletic than pro (or even college) football players. In what other sport do you have a 6'5", 350 lbs. man that runs a 4.5 40, benches 400 lbs., leg presses nearly twice that and whose only job is to knock you into the dirt as hard as he can on every play hoping you won't get up? I'll give you hint - it ain't soccer. I'm not saying soccer players aren't athletic, but to say that football players can't hold a candle to their athletic ability is rediculous.

TStheThird
02-07-2007, 03:21 PM
I find it hard to argue with people that don't watch or understand soccer. I can't respect your opinion if you only understand one side of the debate.

In other news... Americans will never have the passion for soccer that europeans do. Most Americans do not have that kind of passion for any sport. We are spread too thin. I love OSU football, basketball, baseball and wrestling. I enjoy the NFL. I quasi root for the hornets, but really don't care about the NBA. I watch MLB and NHL playoffs. I also watch golf and enjoy watching Federer destroy everyone in Tennis. I watch Serie A and Premiership matches on FSC.

My emotional fan energy is spread across all of these teams. In Europe, they have their soccer team. Imagine if we only had the NFL in America and no college sports. We just had the NFL with minor league teams in smaller cities. The following would be crazy. That is why the big european clubs have billion dollar tv contracts and hundred million dollar contracts with Nike and such for uniforms and giant sponsorship contracts. The big clubs have 20 million plus diehard fans.

Soccer will never be like that in America. No sport will. More people view a Real Madrid regular season game than view the Superbowl.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 03:28 PM
That's something for people to chew on, right there. More people watch a Real Madrid match than the superbowl....hmmmm. That 6'5" 350 lb freak of a human being will only be able to do that for about 5 seconds. Try doing that for 90 minutes and then get back to me. BTW, it all becomes moot because the NFL freak dies around age 50-55 and the soccer player likely lives into his 80s. Tell me who the better athlete really was.

Anyway, it is difficult to argue with these people who so vehemently hate soccer. None of this changes the fact that there is a real future in the MLS and it is growing. Oklahoma City needs to get in the game, and improve the quality of life of the City in the process.

traxx
02-07-2007, 03:38 PM
Try doing for it 90 minutes huh, so that's what a soccer player does for 90 minutes? Really.

Freak? I think not, it's not so uncommon in football. Plus many players play for 10 or 15 years in the NFL. And athletic ability is a moot point because of what they do in their 50s or 60s. That doesn't have anything to do with what happens on the field. BTW, I'm not buying the football player lives to 50 while a pro soccer player lives to almost 90 argument. You could find examples to argue either side that but it doesn't make it any more or less true as an average.

Yeah, Third, americans will never have the kind of passion for american sports like the Europeans do, if that means we don't break out into riots at games on a regular basis and maim or kill other fans. If that happens here it's major news, if it happens in Europe it's buried in the back of the news behind the water skiing squirrel.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 03:44 PM
If you don't think that a 6'5" 350 pound person running a 4.6 forty yard dash isn't a freak (as in an abormality), then really there is no arguing to be done with you. You are set in your ways, and that much is clear. You have no appreciation for something that the majority of the world enjoys more than any other sport. Good for you, you're really onto something!

Nevertheless your slate of oh-so-typical anti-soccer arguments have yet to demonstrate that the MLS would NOT succeed in OKC. Again I ask, did you read the market analysis?

TStheThird
02-07-2007, 03:49 PM
I think American's would riot if we only had one sport that we followed. We have the luxury of spreading that emotional energy to many sports. I am not trying to argue about europeans being more passionate, just stating an observation from my time living in Italy and my love for sports in America.

I wasn't much of a soccer fan when I moved there, but I was a big sports fan. In time, I became a huge soccer fan. I don't know if it was because 10 of the 13 tv channels at my apartment coverd soccer 24 hours a day, or because that is all my flatmates talked about, or if it was because I got to see some games live in Bologna, Stadio Olimpico in Rome, and San Siro in Milano, but I have become a huge fan of soccer.

I will be honest, four years ago I could care less, now, it is my favorite sport. I caught the bug.

Now, back to the argument. War MLS!

scotplum
02-07-2007, 03:54 PM
First, I don't care how cheap the tickets are that doesn't = entertainment. I wouldn't go even if it were free. I betcha there's alot of others that feel that way too. More so than would pay to see MLS week in and week out over a season. So the prospect of several seasons is out of the question. Yes, I'll grant you there may be some interest at first because it's something new but after the new has worn off it won't be sustainable.

Of course I should have realized how laughable your arguments were when you posted that little gem about soccer players being so much more athletic than pro (or even college) football players. In what other sport do you have a 6'5", 350 lbs. man that runs a 4.5 40, benches 400 lbs., leg presses nearly twice that and whose only job is to knock you into the dirt as hard as he can on every play hoping you won't get up? I'll give you hint - it ain't soccer. I'm not saying soccer players aren't athletic, but to say that football players can't hold a candle to their athletic ability is rediculous.


I've never understood why so many people are simply anti-soccer. Is it because it is not an American born sport? That's really the only thing that makes sense to me.

No offense intended traxx, plus a lot of people here in the US feel the exact same way as you, however why people are out to kill a sport they "don't care about" makes no sense to me. To say soccer is not entertainment is absolutely ridiculous. I just don't understand why some are so close-minded when it comes to the sport of soccer.

One positive thing to note about an impressive soccer stadium in OKC is that when the World Cup comes back to the U.S., we'd likely host some World Cup games. That is nice world wide publicity.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 04:04 PM
That is GREAT worldwide publicity and would be incredible.

I have been doing some research on this topic, and really, it's difficult to understand. Why ARE many Americans so vehemently anti-soccer?

They say a 3-1 match is boring, yet would insist that a 21-7 football game would be good entertainment? THAT makes no sense.

I think it's largely to do with (a) soccer not having been originated in the U.S.; (b) some kind of pseudo-nationalistic, quasi-Napoleanic reaction against the "rest of the stupid world."; and (c) a uniquely American "machoism" where they think that soccer involves no physicality relative to other sports.

Whatever the case may be, to hold such a negative sentiment about a sport is ignorance. I'm not saying you HAVE to like it or be a fan, but at the very least you'd think these types would at the least acknowledge that it is in fact a sport (and a difficult one at that to play) and that there is a reason why billions like the game.

CuatrodeMayo
02-07-2007, 04:05 PM
1. I have no problem with a multi-use stadium on the river. I think it is a cool idea. It can meet MLS specs, but it needs to be able to be used year-round for a variety of events and meet NFL specs in the event that a MLS franchise is not successful.

2. No youth fields...that land can be used for a much higher purpose.

3. Comparing soccer players to football players is comparing apples to oranges. There is no common yardstick that can be used to determine which is a better athelete. Any comparision made here is merely bias.

writerranger
02-07-2007, 04:25 PM
Couldn't have made the argument better myself. When built south of the river yet connected via a bridge to the Core to Shore area, this will definitely add to the city's quality of life.

We have got to dream big here and think big picture, folks. Three major resort casinos to the north of the river, a retail area adjacent to the casinos, and a bridge/walkway across the river to the soccer complex/park. I love the idea of having biking and running trails through it as well.

Are you talking Indian casinos or do you mean going to the legislature to become a true-blue, big-time casino state with Harrahs and others thast could truly build, "major resort casinos." ????

-------------------

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 04:32 PM
I'm talking about a zoning and legalization of 3 lots for privately owned casino corporations and/or potential Indian purchasers that demonstrate feasibility and plans for casino hotel complexes.

It needs to be done in an upscale manner and not cheap. A minimum of 20 floors for each I would say.

Spartan
02-07-2007, 04:34 PM
First, read this report:
http://www.sportkc.org/news/documents/SoccerFinalReport9-29-05.pdf

Now, consider the following developments going forward.

1. Soccer Specific Stadium on the river near the newly renovated I-40, acommpanied with 10-15 youth fields.

-Uses include:
-Major League Soccer
-Youth tournaments
-Concerts
-High School football state championships
-High School soccer state championships

2. Zoning and legalization for up to 3 casino hotels on the river.

3. An artfully-done retail complex bringing the two areas together.

Wastes of urban space.

Theo Walcott
02-07-2007, 04:38 PM
retail complexes, casinos, and stadiums are wastes of urban space? no, i'm pretty sure your post was a waste of cyber space.

SpectralMourning
02-07-2007, 06:25 PM
Wastes of urban space.

I'm not so sure. If done correctly, it could be placed perfectly in line with a new OKC. A multipurpose stadium that would fulfill our MLS requirements and potential NFL requirements could be situated in the Wiley Post Park and beyond to SW 23rd St. with a massive park (as an extension of the Core to Shore park, perhaps the whole park would be Wiley Post Park?) and tasteful parking garage surrounding the facility. I would also figure that a multipurpose stadium could only do wonders for Capitol Hill if developed properly.

I would figure the park culmination around the complex would extend from Central Ave to the Oklahoma! River tributary (perhaps to Shartel, but I can see the development problems there.) Maybe our beacon could be two large towers off of Shartel and Central, but I don't think it'd pull off a desired effect with the more than likely postmodern stadium in the center.

I'm not sure what the negative effects in building at this location, other than cost risk factors and redevelopment of Shields Blvd (which must be done anyway in my opinion to better serve Capitol Hill.)

As for the casinos, I'm not sure if I'm a fan of those in the downtown area, maybe along the river or to redevelop the Meridian Ave. corridor along the river (after massive rezoning, of course. I don't think anyone can convince me that you can't spark non-industrial development in that area. anyway...) The only thing that would drive me crazy is that a privately-owned casino would play off the Oklahoma stereotypes (I can almost confidently bet you that our first private casino will be named the "Oklahoma!" casino. LOL) but if done tastefully, casinos would be a great addition to that corridor.

I think we all could suggest a use of an NFL and MLS-capacity stadium that could serve multiple tenants. Essentially it would be rather expensive, but I'm sure the costs now aren't nearly as high as they would be 30-50 years down the line. Keep in mind the amount of time Core to Shore will more than likely take 10-20 years (based upon the pathetic, new five-year estimate on the completion of the I-40 relocation, but that's a different animal.) What all could we use a multipurpose stadium for that would justify the expense, other than MLS and NFL?

metro
02-07-2007, 06:56 PM
Is this thread de ja vu? We've talked about this before bringing up the same arguments. And even in a MAPS3 thread. Hellooooooooo

Easy180
02-07-2007, 07:45 PM
That is GREAT worldwide publicity and would be incredible.

I have been doing some research on this topic, and really, it's difficult to understand. Why ARE many Americans so vehemently anti-soccer?

They say a 3-1 match is boring, yet would insist that a 21-7 football game would be good entertainment? THAT makes no sense.

I think it's largely to do with (a) soccer not having been originated in the U.S.; (b) some kind of pseudo-nationalistic, quasi-Napoleanic reaction against the "rest of the stupid world."; and (c) a uniquely American "machoism" where they think that soccer involves no physicality relative to other sports.

Whatever the case may be, to hold such a negative sentiment about a sport is ignorance. I'm not saying you HAVE to like it or be a fan, but at the very least you'd think these types would at the least acknowledge that it is in fact a sport (and a difficult one at that to play) and that there is a reason why billions like the game.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying..A 3-1 soccer match is much more boring than a 21-7 football game...There is a reason why soccer hasn't taken off in America....Bunch of little dudes running around kicking a ball isn't entertaining

I am not anti soccer just not interested in sports w/ little entertainment value...softball is fun to play...not so fun to watch...same with soccer

It would not work in Oklahoma

CuatrodeMayo
02-07-2007, 08:04 PM
retail complexes, casinos, and stadiums are wastes of urban space? no, i'm pretty sure your post was a waste of cyber space.

There is no need for that. Are all ball kickers this militant?


Don't you have a pre-algebra test tomorrow?

scotplum
02-07-2007, 10:59 PM
Yes that is exactly what I am saying..A 3-1 soccer match is much more boring than a 21-7 football game...There is a reason why soccer hasn't taken off in America....Bunch of little dudes running around kicking a ball isn't entertaining

I am not anti soccer just not interested in sports w/ little entertainment value...softball is fun to play...not so fun to watch...same with soccer

It would not work in Oklahoma

Hey, I love football as much as any Oklahoman but a 3-1 soccer score and a 21-7 football score is essentially the same thing in that a total of 4 "scores" were made (not counting extra points). Just because you get more points in football for scoring does not mean the game had more scores. If it's scoring you want then basketball, bowling or boxing is your game.

Just saying. :wink:

scotplum
02-07-2007, 11:02 PM
There is no need for that. Are all ball kickers this militant?


Don't you have a pre-algebra test tomorrow?

LOL.

No, but fans of soccer in the US are always immediately put on the defensive. I'm telling you guys, once you get into it and have a vested interest in a team or even a player, it's pretty exciting stuff. At least, in my opinion.

traxx
02-08-2007, 07:21 AM
If you don't think that a 6'5" 350 pound person running a 4.6 forty yard dash isn't a freak (as in an abormality), then really there is no arguing to be done with you. You are set in your ways, and that much is clear. You have no appreciation for something that the majority of the world enjoys more than any other sport.

Well one of those freaks signed with OU yesterday. Phil Loadholt. He's 6'9" and his weight has been listed anywhere from 325 to 350 and although he doesn't run a 4.6 40 he runs it in about 5 which is still better than alot of us could do. What's a few tenths of a second? And he's not even a pro.

You're right, I have no appreciation for something the majority of the world enjoys because I don't subscribe to the theory that a thousand monkeys can't be wrong. At one time the majority of the world engaged in some kind of slavery. Evern though it was a majority didn't mean I would want to be a part of it.

Theo Walcott
02-08-2007, 07:25 AM
All of those saying that soccer "would not work" in our market are clearly not being mindful of our city's wonderful legacy of supporting sports in the city.

Think about how many fans show up to the Blazers games. Few things are more pointless than minor league hockey, and yet our fans show up in droves and good for them! The MLS is priced comparatively to Blazers hockey but is a legitimate 1st tier professional league. People will show up. History, the demographics of the market, and common sense tells that story.

Easy180
02-08-2007, 07:35 AM
All of those saying that soccer "would not work" in our market are clearly not being mindful of our city's wonderful legacy of supporting sports in the city.

Think about how many fans show up to the Blazers games. Few things are more pointless than minor league hockey, and yet our fans show up in droves and good for them! The MLS is priced comparatively to Blazers hockey but is a legitimate 1st tier professional league. People will show up. History, the demographics of the market, and common sense tells that story.

Not a big fan of hockey either, but throw in some fights in soccer and I may check it out :fighting3

Hey it might work what do I know, but if getting a MLS team somehow prevents a NBA or NFL team to come here I would be super pi**ed

Theo Walcott
02-08-2007, 07:56 AM
An MLS team compliments an NBA team.

We won't be getting an NFL team for at least another 20 years. It's going to be hard enough to get a $75 million complex built; the reality is that getting a $750 million football stadium is far more difficult to achieve. Not only would the city and state be hard pressed to outlay so much cash, but also you have to contend with the likes of OU who would viciously oppose such a stadium.

Here is the situation: We will be getting an NBA team, which is the best entertainment for the winter months, seeing as how we won't be getting the NFL anytime soon.

We cannot get an MLB team because supporting a team for 81 games at 30-35k per game is a stiff order for this market.

Therefore, for the summertime months and to compliment the NBA, the MLS is basically our only option and, as I've tried to convey, I think it's a growing league and would be a good thing for the city and would work well with the Core to Shore development.

traxx
02-08-2007, 09:17 AM
Hmmm. Maybe you're right, Theo. 81 games is a lot. I just don't want this soccer stadium in such prime real estate. That would take up a lot of area that I feel should be used for business and retail. Plus, I'm still hoping for a boardwalk on the river.

I would love to have MLB in OKC though. I just think we need a higher population before that'll work really well. But I can see it happening before the NFL.

Theo Walcott
02-08-2007, 09:40 AM
Well, this is why I suggest having the stadium south of the river, the fields south of the river but connected via bridge to the northern, technical "Core to Shore" developments.

jbrown84
02-08-2007, 11:52 AM
2. No youth fields...that land can be used for a much higher purpose.

Exactly.

I think a very multi-purpose stadium would work south of the river as part of an extended park, but no youth fields.

Kerry
02-10-2007, 07:40 PM
I hated soccer until my kids started playing in a youth league. Now that I know the rules and strategy I enjoy it a lot. I do find it funny that a lot of people in OKC like hockey but for some reason think soccer is a sure loser. Go figure.

Theo Walcott
02-11-2007, 08:40 AM
It really is this simple:

In this diagram where "ampitheater" is shown, replace that with a 20-25,000 seat primarily soccer, but multipurpose stadium. Our city would be the cream of the crop with this kind of addition. A Millenium Park-type arrangement with a beautiful outdoor stadium on the River with Bricktown to boot. Who would've thought!

http://okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visuals/feb_concept.jpg

That was much too large, but open it up and you get the general idea.

Theo Walcott
02-11-2007, 09:15 AM
Here you have an idea of some similar stadiums that might be comparable to something that would work for the city.

Note that it is very important that the seating be covered by a partial roof to keep things cooler in the summer time.

Here is one currently being built by the MK Dons, a lower league squad in England. The stadium seats 30,000 and was built for around $100 million, which would obviously be at the upper scale of things we'd be considering.

http://www.stadiumguide.com/mkdonsnew2.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/si-o-doom/Stadium%20mk/DSC_0019.jpg

Theo Walcott
02-11-2007, 09:22 AM
Here is another design, which is probably a more realistic idea as to what the city could go for. This is JJB Stadium where Wigan Athletic plays in the Premier League. This one seats 25,000, and at its time of construction cost 30m pounds. This one looks very nice, is enclosed, and the brick would compliment the Ford Center well.

http://www.stadiumguide.com/jjbstadium4.jpg

Theo Walcott
02-11-2007, 09:37 AM
Finally, here's another intriguing proposal. What about constructing similar to something like is being done in Bristol, England. This stadium is being built for around 30m pounds, but has the benefits of also including 120 hotel rooms AND 500 condominium spaces. The idea of combining a multi-purpose stadium with a hotel, and selling condominium spaces would be very revolutionary, and when put in the middle of the Millenium Park-type development, would be an attractive living space. Here are some pics of the Bristol project:

http://www.bristolrovers.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/d0/ab/0,,10328~2993104,00.jpg

http://www.bristolrovers.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/cf/ab/0,,10328~2993103,00.jpg

http://www.bristolrovers.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/cc/ab/0,,10328~2993100,00.jpg

jbrown84
02-12-2007, 09:10 AM
I would prefer the stadium be three-sided with the north end open to the river with a downtown view. That would be great for outdoor concerts and the amount of seating more practical for our market.