Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

DCU Stadium, Dempsey Goal, USA Loss

*United responds to the Post's Metro section story.

*USA midfielder Clint Dempsey scores in the second minute, but Fulham falls at home to Blackburn, 2-1.

*The USA women score a late equalizer, then lose to Sweden on penalty kicks in the Algarve Cup final.

By Steve Goff  |  March 11, 2009; 6:16 PM ET
Categories:  D.C. United , U.S. men's national team , Women  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Matchnight: DCU-TFC
Next: Thursday Kickaround

Comments

The responses received in regards to stadium: From Del. Doyle Niemann- "Thanks for your email on the proposed stadium for DC United in Prince George's County. Frankly, I have not decided what my position is on this bill. It comes down to economics. I am opposed to any solution that does not fully pay for itself. I am also skeptical about rosy projections that are not supported by facts and data.

In Prince George's County we have a long history of glib promises made to get public benefits that do not materialize. The Redskins stadium is a perfect example. It has not produced the benefits promised.

When private businesses want public "welfare" they are quick to make promises, but unless there is some real mechanism to hold them to their promises, it is all talk.

A soccer stadium in the county would be nice, but not at the expense of public safety, housing, health, education and other critical services -- all of which are in financial peril. So I want to see real numbers and real ways to hold the owners of the team accountable for what they promise. Otherwise, we have better things to do with our money."

Thomas Dernoga "Thanks for your email on the proposed stadium for DC United in Prince George's County. Frankly, I have not decided what my position is on this bill. It comes down to economics. I am opposed to any solution that does not fully pay for itself. I am also skeptical about rosy projections that are not supported by facts and data.

In Prince George's County we have a long history of glib promises made to get public benefits that do not materialize. The Redskins stadium is a perfect example. It has not produced the benefits promised.

When private businesses want public "welfare" they are quick to make promises, but unless there is some real mechanism to hold them to their promises, it is all talk.

A soccer stadium in the county would be nice, but not at the expense of public safety, housing, health, education and other critical services -- all of which are in financial peril. So I want to see real numbers and real ways to hold the owners of the team accountable for what they promise. Otherwise, we have better things to do with our money."

Posted by: carmines757 | March 11, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Hear, Hear. That bears repeating. Sounds like this Thomas Dernoga is stealing from Niemann. Or is it the other way around?

Posted by: fischy | March 11, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Fulham had European ambitions. Who knew?

Posted by: fischy | March 11, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

so who's coordinating this opposition. canned responses that are exactly the same like that are very sketchy.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | March 11, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

When you see coordinated, canned responses, it means they're not even open to argument. The fix is in as far as those 2 are concerned, and anyone else putting out the same message. They're not waiting to see real numbers...

Posted by: fischy | March 11, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Can you blame him not everyone cares about soccer. Why should the public have to pay to build a stadium they aren't going to use? Public funding of sports never made sense to me. I don't ask the county to pay the portion of my house that they are going to get in property taxes...

Posted by: bighungry | March 11, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't know where you draw that conclusion fischy. In fact they say specifically that they are looking for "real numbers and real ways to hold the owners of the team accountable for what they promise." What's wrong with that? Isn't that what they should be doing?

A canned and coordinated response from politicians. I'm shocked, shocked

Posted by: OWNTF | March 11, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

@OWNTF -- I'm saying they've already explained their position, in a coordinated manner. The line about waiting to see real numbers is a throwaway line. There are no #s that DCU could present which they will regard as "real numbers".

Posted by: fischy | March 11, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Did Portland ever vote?

Posted by: Reignking | March 11, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey Goff, do you know if the Post is going to respond to Kevin Payne's statement today? Perhaps an apology, clarification, something? I know you have no control over this but I'd be interested to know.

And @Reignking, the Portland City Council voted 3-2 in favor today, but removed $15m in funding from the project in the process. At least that's my understanding.

Posted by: VercengetorixII | March 11, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

What, you expected public officials to be able to think for themselves?

Posted by: writered21 | March 11, 2009 8:43 PM | Report abuse

again this does not make sense, i thought no Money is coming out of the county??? i thought the stadium will pay for itself? also where was this stuff when they were posing on camera?? Aldd the Md reps were pimping the project, etc?

Posted by: Norteno4life | March 11, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: joshuaostevens | March 11, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

joshua: yes, that's the statement that Vercen was talking about (I'm not sure why you needed to link it); Vercen is asking if the Post plans to reply.

Posted by: christopher_a_metzler | March 11, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious about the Redskins stadium comment. Didn't the late, great, Jack Kkent Cooke build that stadium with his own coin? I know MD kicked in for infrastructure and whatnot, and I'm sure it cost millions and millions of dollars, but it makes we wonder what was "promised" and what was delivered. I bet if the skins pulled up and left, they would gripe about the lost revenues.

In regards to the form letter issued by the Delegates. I don't have a big problem with that. They (and their staffs) can't be expected to answer every letter and email personally. However, that being said, I don't particularly like what they said.

Posted by: torrey151 | March 11, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

$5 billion to extend Metro to Dulles. How much more to go to St. Louis?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 11, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see someone from DCU stepping up against the Metro desk's constant errors and skewed presentation. I don't know if the Metro desk is just not very good, or if they have an agenda, but the number of times they've misrepresented our side of this is alarming. What worries me is that it took like 3 years of consistent problems before someone with DCU made a lengthy public statement on the topic.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | March 11, 2009 9:34 PM | Report abuse

again this does not make sense, i thought no Money is coming out of the county??? i thought the stadium will pay for itself? also where was this stuff when they were posing on camera?? Aldd the Md reps were pimping the project, etc?

Posted by: Norteno4life | March 11, 2009 8:51 PM

Not sure why you're confused. Yes, the argument is that the stadium will 'pay for itself'. That isn't literal -- someone has to pay to build it. Once it is built and operating, it is projected to earn enough in tax revenues and rental payments from DCU and whatever other events are scheduled there to pay off the bonds that will be issued to raise the money to build it.

Even at the press conference announcing this -- when they were posing and pimping -- they made clear that:

"The Maryland Stadium Authority will issue bonds that will be repaid by rent from D.C. United and brand new tax revenue generated by the team and stadium. The Authority will not use existing taxes to repay the bonds."

As for what the team is expecting to pay: "D.C. United will pay rent to cover its share of construction costs....The team's contribution is estimated to be $45 million to $50 million dollars."

So, the team anticipates its rental payments will roughly equal what the Stadium Authority is asking the PG County Council to contribute. Although they haven't been entirely clear about this, it seems to me that this would mean that there will be a guaranteed fund to repay the County. Since the Stadium Authority will own the stadium, they will bear the risk of any loss here. What they're really asking is for the County to put up enough money to make the remainder politically palatable for the State legislators. Between what DCU expects to pay in rent, and what they are asking PG County to pay, the State will be on the hook for about $100 million in construction bonds. The assumption is they will collect enough in taxes and from other events over 20 or 30 years to pay off that amount.

Posted by: fischy | March 11, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

I guess that would be somewhere between $130-150 million (since DCU's rent will cover PG's nut). I confused myself....

Posted by: fischy | March 11, 2009 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know what's going on with MLSLive.tv? It's had the same coming soon page for quite some time.

Posted by: addick | March 11, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

This article probably employs the most stupid logic I've ever seen when it comes to explaining soccer:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1329

Posted by: onsighter | March 11, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Is that a serious website, onsighter?

Posted by: sitruc | March 11, 2009 11:52 PM | Report abuse

@addick:last I heard it may be free this year... still no real word on that though.
@onsighter:mr. webb was obviously a total failure at every sport he ever played. a baseball idolizer, who sucked. I agreee that the article was REALLY stupid. wish I never read it. thanks anyway though.

Posted by: DadRyan | March 11, 2009 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I enjoyed reading for a a good kick of someone who just doesn't get it. I enjoyed spending time on the website of the school that man taught at (Wabash College). They're an all male school in Indiana, and not very good at soccer. The school's mascot/nickname? Little Giants.

Posted by: JacobfromAtlanta-ish | March 12, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Reads like an attempt to make soccer part of the right wing culture war. Yawn. Wish those people would shut up.

Posted by: Mastodon_Juan | March 12, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Egad that was awful. And that man is a full professor?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 12, 2009 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Obviously guys the author is joking, just poking fun at us soccer fans.....isn't he?

Posted by: PEddy | March 12, 2009 12:28 AM | Report abuse

My problem with the opposition is they keep insisting that this is taking money away from schools, police officers, new roads, etc. However, the Maryland Stadium Authority would have no authority to help with these endeavors. In addition, bonds are sold with an expected financial return which these don't supply at least not directly. Why doesn't the opposition get this?

Posted by: croftonpost | March 12, 2009 12:43 AM | Report abuse

A certain someone on a previous thread attributed the WNT loss to Hope Solo changing her hair. A joke, of course, but dude: Solo was the MVP of the tournament, and the award was well-deserved. That late equalizer never would have been possible except for three thrilling saves. One was a full extension punch to send the ball wide. The other two were both breakaway one-on-ones that she smothered. Goalkeepers should never win those and she won two! In the PKs, she stopped two and the Swedes put three over the crossbar or outside the post.

Last year, after winning the title, the WNT were all smiles and posed for pictures, signed autographs, etc. This year, even though they were absolutely broken-hearted, they did the same. Solo and Heather O'Reilly were out with us for about a half hour each. I have even more respect for them now than I ever did.

Oh yeah, the game: very evenly matched sides, but they seemed to take turns dominating each other rather than having a typically even-matched contest. Natascha Kai was badly hurt but stayed in the match. I believe her shoulder was dislocated, popped back into place, she vomited, and then kept playing with her arm hanging straight down at her side...and still played very well. Rapinoe proved again that she can beat any two defenders but not necessarily a third. In each of the three games I watched, they did not translate midfield domination into hard shots.

Can't wait to see them again.

Posted by: troy6 | March 12, 2009 4:51 AM | Report abuse

I didn't read the match report, but are you saying that the US coulodn't win when Solo blocked two and the Swedes missed three? We deserved to lose then...

Posted by: bighungry | March 12, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

That's an awesome report, thank you troy6.

Pia on Solo:“I think she was the best player in the tournament and came up huge many times. She’s just playing better and better. She brings out the best in the back four.”

Posted by: OWNTF | March 12, 2009 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"A certain someone on a previous thread attributed the WNT loss to Hope Solo changing her hair."

Yeah. That guy is a total jerk.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 12, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Heather Missed.

Posted by: joedoc1 | March 12, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Joe Doc: It wasn't funny yesterday either.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 12, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Hope Solo says:

"I could have scored that."

Posted by: mason08 | March 12, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I thought a new day would help. Alas...

Posted by: joedoc1 | March 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company