Network News

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

DCU Stadium, Injury Updates

Not particularly good news on either front.

Read the Metro section story.

Read the Sports section story.

Comments welcome below.

By Steve Goff  |  March 24, 2009; 11:47 PM ET
Categories:  D.C. United  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sala Sidelined 4-6 Weeks
Next: Early Wednesday Kickaround

Comments

Posted in the other thread too soon!

Meanwhile, the Dynamo get closer to actually breaking ground on their new stadium:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6337950.html

Posted by: SportzNut21 | March 24, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Wow this does not bold well for the Red and Black.

Posted by: calito01 | March 25, 2009 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Lyle Adams signed with the USL2 team the Austin Aztecs

Posted by: AnthonyTheGreat | March 25, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

If I knew how to use bold type...

Kudos to the Dynamo, especially for covering most of the cost themselves. I wonder why they project costs at less than half of what DCU is planning? However, I think they'll come to regret the $2.5 million they got to let a college football team play there. They're going to destroy the pitch. It will cost them more than that, in the long run, to keep fixing it.

Posted by: fischy | March 25, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Not good news? Not for me. I think it's great news. Keep the team in DC!!

And by 5-0, you would mean of the eventual 9 on the Council, the majority has already spoken. The PG Stadium is dead before it even gets started.

Here's to LOT 8! Here's to looking in DC or NOVA!

Here's to Mr McFarland's "DRACONIAN measures" of moving the team. Caca de Toros.

Posted by: delantero | March 25, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Could it be land costs? Or maybe their stadium will be something closer to the bare bones Crew Stadium model than what DCU has planned? If it's the latter, it might be something United should have on the table. Obviously we all want a stadium that makes Red Bull Arena look like a crack den, but if a concrete-and-bleachers-only set up bridges the financial gaps (which would make the team's percentage of contribution go up, which in turn would help a lot of the public perception), it's got to be seriously considered at this point.

I wonder how that amendment about the Park and Planning HQ got attached, and what can be done to get rid of it. I guess it's good that the delegates from PG are still talking it up, but it's hard not to feel very nervous about this.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | March 25, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

delantero:

Keep the team in DC, until the lease at RFK is up and the city tells us to get lost so they can demolish it for the building of Dan Snyder's Screw You Dallas Dome.

There aren't any sites in the city. Do you really think MacFarlane and Chang prefer building in PG over anywhere in the District? The other options you're talking about just aren't out there. Even if there were possible sites, which I again emphasize that there aren't, the city has made it clear that they don't really care about DC United. They aren't going to do a thing to help us, and in this town you need that help or you're dead in the water.

Also, I think you misunderstood the article. The council isn't in the position to kill the stadium on its own; the State house is. The vote was whether to recommend to the State house to authorize the Stadium Authority to start the planning process.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | March 25, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

I am getting absolutely flabbergasted by some of the United fans in this area. This problem isn't going to magically cure itself and go away. However, DC United may just go away permanently. Please stop before you start with the threat card too. It's just economics with the team and they aren't good right now. It's not a threat to get it done.
Every time I read a depressing article like today's it just sucks the joy right out of the MLS season for me. If this team is doomed then who cares how they do this season. I hate to say this but they may have to consider a suburban Dallas-like stadium to stay in the DC area. Otherwise, if they decide to move I hope they consider Baltimore. I would much rather see Baltimore/Maryland United than St. Louis United. I'm also fairly confident that a Baltimore stadium would pass much easier than a PG stadium.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 25, 2009 2:40 AM | Report abuse

NBC4 just asked its views to comment on the stadium debate on their twitter and facebook pages. They've already read one "anti-stadium" comment. I suggest we flood their status updates/wall posts.

Posted by: TCompton | March 25, 2009 6:34 AM | Report abuse

It’s amazing the lack of vision by some politicians. The Maryland Stadium Authority conducted a thorough report last year which demonstrated all the benefits that luring the team from D.C would bring to the county. There’s no need for more research. This project guarantees job creation, would revitalize and stimulate the chosen site, and attract all those so call soccer hippies to the area to spend, spend, spend. Not to mention the national and international spotlight which soccer would bring to the county.
Does the plan come with risk, sure, but hasn’t DC United proven their product and its success both in the field and in the community since 1996. The proposed deal is not even asking for current tax payer money to be spent. It recommends using tax bonds and new tax reviews that would be created once the facilities are built. To all those that fear that soccer is a niche sport or not alluring enough, get over it. Soccer is growing in the country and would continue to grow. Out of all the professional sports leagues MLS (Major League Soccer) is the only one expanding with new franchises and teams. That tells you something right there, especially with the current economics. I hope, plead, that DC United does not loose interest in our area. They have unquestionable fan support and would be a disgrace to loose such a sports icon.

Posted by: blip_it | March 25, 2009 7:52 AM | Report abuse

wow. that was sudden. so much for the prince george's county option. since united has stopped negotiating with the district, it's hard to see what options the club has left locally. i have to imagine that the st. louis and ottawa organizers will be on the phone to uncle vic this morning, if they didn't call late yesterday afternoon. maybe baltimore would take the team and maybe a stadium could be built in the far reaches of northern virginia. but, my guess is that the team will be moved to st. louis or ottawa unless something extraordinary happens over the next few weekes.

Posted by: Stevenho | March 25, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Kudos to the Dynamo, especially for covering most of the cost themselves. I wonder why they project costs at less than half of what DCU is planning?

Posted by: fischy | March 25, 2009 12:18 AM


Have you seen it? It looks like a glorified high school stadium. Thats why.

Posted by: afadgsafhgd | March 25, 2009 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Also, I think you misunderstood the article. The council isn't in the position to kill the stadium on its own; the State house is. The vote was whether to recommend to the State house to authorize the Stadium Authority to start the planning process.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | March 25, 2009 1:01 AM

Why in the world would the state pursue this if the county council doesn't even support it? This doesn't look good.

Posted by: afadgsafhgd | March 25, 2009 8:10 AM | Report abuse

In some ways not surprising. Risk is not popular now, even less so for politicians. The longer this drags out, the more precarious it becomes.

Scary outcomes:

- Team is moved to greener pastures but retained but present owners
- MacF and Co. take a loss and sell to the highest bidder (making a move fairly likely)
- Team stays @ RFK for short term as MacF tries to make PG happen....and then nothing happens

Possible outcome: MacF and Co. sweeten the deal to make it more attractive to the public and to the PG politicos. Question is, what's the breaking point that brings this about? At what point might MacF say "screw it, no one wants to play in the sandbox that we've suggested, I'll have to suggest a different, more enticing sandbox" ?

Posted by: 22206no1 | March 25, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

ok the stadium obviously bad news. but more pressing is that I think I have no choice but to start McBride on my fantasy team. as a general rule, I don't pick guys we're playing, but without McTavish or Janicki, this could get very ugly very fast.

Posted by: joshuaostevens | March 25, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Unless they plan to cut bait and run, I think MacFarlane/Chang and Co. just need to bunker in at RFK until the economy turns around and hope the place doesn't fall down around their ears. No municipality is going to greenlight a project like this in the current economic climate. Politicians are far too skittish to sign off on a stadium deal right now, and I can't say I blame them one bit.

Posted by: jburksva | March 25, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

delantero, you really haven't been paying attention these past ten years or so have you?

Posted by: Cavan9 | March 25, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't sound like you want those two going up for headers, that's for sure.

Posted by: Reignking | March 25, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Why, honestly, are so many DC supporters so scornful of a bare-bones stadium design, if it would help get the thing built?

Posted by: Mastodon_Juan | March 25, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

bunker down? how? The stadium is reaching the end of its life. It's starting to fall apart. The city also wants to demolish it as soon as possible. Our team has been bunkering down at RFK for 10 years now. That was then. This is now.

Posted by: Cavan9 | March 25, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I don't think we are scornful of barebones. I just think that's a bargaining chip to be thrown in later.

Posted by: Cavan9 | March 25, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

delantero, you really haven't been paying attention these past ten years or so have you?

Posted by: Cavan9 | March 25, 2009 9:26 AM

Actually been going to United games at RFK for 13 years, tough guy. How bout yourself?

Please, though, enlighten me. There are stadium sites within the District, just not 34 acres worth for a stadium/hotel complex. Have you been paying attention?

Posted by: delantero | March 25, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm just getting so excited of the thought of watching our very own USL-2 team play in a local high school stadium!!!!

Posted by: DCU_VW | March 25, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Janicki: "I've been a little tired, a little groggy, spacing out," he said.

That's a typical day for me. Only I can't blame a bleeding head wound for my symptoms...

Posted by: joedoc1 | March 25, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Chest:

"the city has made it clear that they don't really care about DC United. They aren't going to do a thing to help us, "

Huh? The city council recessed without voting on it . . . Did McF, etc, entertain DC execs/council members at his box at RFK like he did the Jack the, PG exec? Nope.

Has Payne ever said where exactly he looked within DC/NOVA? Nope.

"On February 14, 2008, Washington, D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty suggested at a closed-door city council meeting that the city might offer as much as $150 million towards the costs of building a soccer stadium at Poplar Point. "

“Having the stadium here in Ward 8 will make this ward a destination point for people in the metropolitan area,” said Philip Pannell, Executive Director of Anacostia Coordinating Council.

Posted by: delantero | March 25, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chest - are you sure there aren't any sites in the city? I was told that the citypushed United to look at several sites in the city - including Lot 8 - and that the team balked. Why they balked is anyone's guess - city's financial offer, lack of tangential development opportunities, Fenty's personal animus ...

Posted by: b1968k | March 25, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

It is not only that the stadium is old, but that United can not be profitable since the DC stadium Authority take the vast majority of the game profits (parking, beer and food sales etc.). The stadium, while old, can probably hang in there for a few more years. One of the many problems with RFK is that it does NOT have any suites for the really big bucks to flow.
RE: PG County-we are still at the early stages of the process. While the current status, at its surface, is gloomy; it is still way to early for the draconian move thoughts. VAMOS UNITED!

Posted by: DCUmaniacsX2 | March 25, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

""but that United can not be profitable since the DC stadium Authority take the vast majority of the game profits (parking, beer and food sales etc.).""

Per reports on this blog and elsewhere, United is now in control of concessions and parking. Per Payne on a chat (paraphrase) "We're still losing money, just not as much."

So what is the true financial story for United at RFK? Rent is $1 million/year, correct? What do they get out of concessions/parking, etc?

Posted by: delantero | March 25, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

From what I have been reading, United are receiving more money from the game profits; but not really in control. They renegotiated the percentages of game day profits. For a long time, it was really lopsided towards DC. To be profitable, the team has to have a stadium and all the profits, and be in control.

Posted by: DCUmaniacsX2 | March 25, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

It's beginning to look like DC United is a cursed team, or at least has some very serious negative kharma.

First, the Club failed to negotiate a stadium with the District, and is now losing the fight in Maryland.

Then you've got the plague of injuries hitting this team. From concussions, to hernias, to hamstring, this club is falling apart. And we have yet to assign someone the mandatory forearm cast!

I mean, really! How can this season possibly be any different than last season?

Posted by: TCompton | March 25, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

@blip_it, afadgsafhgd

"There’s no need for more research."

Maybe the conclusions won't change, but the Stadium Authority commissioned the original study. There's a conflict when the SA's study recommends that the SA get more money and authority.

"Out of all the professional sports leagues MLS (Major League Soccer) is the only one expanding with new franchises and teams."

Short answer the NHL expansion was not carefully managed, hence the caution. But no-one pays attention the the details.

"Why in the world would the state pursue this if the county council doesn't even support it?"

The upper tier politicians enjoy wielding power over the locals. Note that congressmen are always trying to pull some kind of crap with DC vis-a-vis gun laws, school vouchers, etc.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 25, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I think the stadium plan would be approved if DCU ponied up more than 25% of the cost, but I don't see that happening unless the site is big enough for development (shops, hotel, etc.) and McFarlane gets to participate in the development, i.e., what he "loses" on the stadium he more than covers with the ancillary development. But in this economy, it's not just governments that are reluctant to take on even a contingent liability, because I think McF might find it difficult to raise the capital needed to fund a speculative development project around the stadium.

Posted by: b18bolo | March 25, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

"On February 14, 2008, Washington, D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty suggested at a closed-door city council meeting that the city might offer as much as $150 million towards the costs of building a soccer stadium at Poplar Point. "

“Having the stadium here in Ward 8 will make this ward a destination point for people in the metropolitan area,” said Philip Pannell, Executive Director of Anacostia Coordinating Council.

Posted by: delantero | March 25, 2009 9:42 AM

That might as well be a hundred years ago now. The Clark plan at Poplar Point is dead (Fenty was half-hoping United would partner with Clark, maybe with some Nats Stadium profits helping the effort). The redevelopment plan has now re-entered 'long term' mode. I doubt anyone will be putting a swing set on Poplar Point for at least 4 years, let alone a soccer stadium.

Posted by: Kev29 | March 25, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I mean, really! How can this season possibly be any different than last season?

Posted by: TCompton | March 25, 2009 10:11 AM

Uhhmmm you noticed we only have 1 DP now right? Sorry, the stupid stadium drama is just as lame as before, but I'd take the youth of the club now over the team who really didn't play well last season aside from the run in June.
I haven't heard of any hernias yet, but now that you mentioned it, I'm sure it'll happen this weekend...

Posted by: DadRyan | March 25, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

and also TCompton do you have a link to NBC4's twitter page you mentioned?

Posted by: DadRyan | March 25, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I'm with delantro on this one. Our owner's intrests in mixed development are what is keeping United out of DC. The DC government offered up sites, including Lot 8, and all we heard was run around answers from Kevin Payne on why they weren't feasible. The issue is that the district isn't going to let McFarlane do whatever he wants with any land they offer up to him. Thats why Poplar Point fell apart, and I can't really blame the city for blocking that deal.

Posted by: VTUnited | March 25, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Everyone repeat after me......St. Louis United.

Posted by: SonicDeathMonkey | March 25, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Have you seen it? It looks like a glorified high school stadium. Thats why.

Posted by: afadgsafhgd | March 25, 2009 8:07 AM
--------------------------------------------

True. The weather in DC during the summer really requires a cover -- a roof over the fans, since it rains around game time so often. And, while they're at it, they could use some private suites to attract what's left of that law firm money. DC isn't Houston, so a different, and more ambitious stadium is warranted.

As for the politics and dynamics of this -- please check out my comments in the Sala thread. This drama has a long way to go before it plays itself out. It's almost certain to continue into next year, given the current economic climate and the House bill calling for more study. I'm not sure why the County Council is upset about moving the Planning Comm'n HQ to the site. I would think that's a pretty good deal for the area, but I suspect it has something to do with the politically-connected private developer now being shut out of the deal.

Anyway, I think that there's another chapter that could still involve the District. Next year, when local governments are in better shape, DCU may have options to explore.

Posted by: fischy | March 25, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I'm also having no luck finding NBC4's facebook page...
Any links?

@ fischy: I believe that we still may need to be patient, but I am again reminded of what happened to the Seattle Super Sonics. If the team gets sold, it's gone.

Who in there right mind would buy the team and even consider getting a stadium deal done a possibility with the way this has gone? If anybody thinks that it would be impossible for the team to get sold to someone who has no intention on keeping them in the area should read up on what happened with the Sonics.
By the end of the fight, the fans were over it. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened here. As the stadium crumbles, and ticket prices rise people will lose interest. Unless of course they get that 5th star:-)

Posted by: DadRyan | March 25, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Unless they can get a "clean" bill, that is, one that deals solely with the stadium question, forget about PG county. DCU should not even want this bill. It's logical to think, and easy to believe, that adding completely unrelated local government projects to it would help it pass. Obviously that isn't the case. It might be a booby prize anyway -- to get the funding under those conditions. What's more, there will always be naysayers, and frankly, I doubt the the DCU front office's knack for skillfully handling the political turbulence.

There are plenty of other satisfactory, if not ideal, options. That includes no new stadium, period. Certainly now, the conditions aren't right. It just fits the character of DCU lately to jump at the first option and throw a fit when it doesn't work out.

Posted by: Godfather_of_Goals | March 25, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Vammos Rockville United!!!

Posted by: kenemerc | March 25, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

That's it! I'm not spending one more dime in maryland!!!! ;-)

Posted by: gode | March 25, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I don't get the *conditions aren't right* position. People need jobs, construction costs are way down and so are material costs. Sitting on our hands until the price goes up is stupid. Honestly, who's gonna make money in the future? People who are investing now, that's who.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__X7ybW9Ljg

Posted by: DadRyan | March 25, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I don't get it, someone please help me out. EVERY OTHER city in the nation with an MLS team (minus Revs who do not need one) has approved some sort of stadium package. Why is DC any different?

We get 15-30 thousand people showing up to all of these stadiums around the country and legislators still see "soccer" + "stadium" and think, "OH NO, what if it fails?!"

We even had a study by an entity of the state government that said "Build the stadium" and still they can't believe it would work. What exactly is wrong here?

Posted by: dpowellutkedu | March 25, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

While I think the stadium could be a great deal for all concerned, I believe DCU is sabotaging the project by failing to assuage taxpayers' legitimate concerns.

As I understand the current deal, 75% of the cost of the stadium would be raised through municipal bonds, which would be paid off through tax proceeds generated by the stadium. Any shortfall, however, would fall to the taxpayers. In short, if the stadium is successful, it pays for itself; if it's not successful, taxpayers are on the hook.

A feasability study shows the stadium is likely to be successful, and thus to pay for itself (although reasonable people can disagree about whether these findings hold true in a depressed economy). Further, a stadium could likely stimulate significant economic growth for the region, creating jobs and tax revenue and generally proving a great investment. Not unreasonably, however, taxpayers are more concerned at present with minimizing their exposure than in maximizing their reward -- especially where the promised reward appears to inure primarily to DCU and only collaterally to the taxpayer.

DCU should assuage taxpayers' concerns by agreeing to indemnify the county for a significant percentage (i.e., at least 50%) of any revenue shortfall. By assuming a substantial portion of the taxpayers' risk, DCU sends a powerful message that it believes in the stadium's efficacy as an economic stimulant to the region. Further, it signifies that the club is truly partnering with the taxpayer. If the stadium is a success, of course, this never becomes an issue: the stadium is paid for out of tax receipts.

In exchange for taking on more risk, DCU could bargain for better rewards. This might mean DCU commits less money (or no money) up front, for example, or perhaps receives any number of collateral considerations relating to the owners' subsidiary development projects. If the stadium is a success, the club would receive an even greater windfall by having bargained to indemnify the county.

But taxpayers are wary of risking new funds on a speculative investment right now. If DCU wants its stadium, it needs a proposal that limits taxpayers' risk.

Posted by: asfoolasiam | March 25, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I don't get it, someone please help me out. EVERY OTHER city in the nation with an MLS team (minus Revs who do not need one) has approved some sort of stadium package. Why is DC any different?

Posted by: dpowellutkedu | March 25, 2009 11:47 AM

Other MLS stadium deals have been cheaper, with a higher percentage of private money and without as many ancillary property development ideas - oh and mostly in areas with more land to develop. So in short, a lot easier to pull off politically (though some have still struggled).

Posted by: Kev29 | March 25, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DCUnitedFootball | March 25, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't get the *conditions aren't right* position. People need jobs, construction costs are way down and so are material costs. Sitting on our hands until the price goes up is stupid. Honestly, who's gonna make money in the future? People who are investing now, that's who. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__X7ybW9Ljg

Posted by: DadRyan | March 25, 2009 11:32 AM
-------------------------------------------

Thanks for making the Obama argument on infrastructure investment. It's true that borrowing costs are way down, as are construction costs. It's an ideal time to make such investments, except for state and local governments which are required to submit balanced budgets. It might not make a lot of sense, since this really is the perfect time for big capital projects that will save money in the long run. There are budgetary restrictions and even bigger political restrictions because the governments are laying off workers. Doing that to balance the operating budget at the same time you're voting to lay out almost $200 million in capital on a soccer stadium? Hard to make that case with a straight face, even if it's really apples and oranges.

Posted by: fischy | March 25, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to rehash this dead argument but someone please refresh my memory. I was jogging behing RFK on Monday evening and just looking at all of that space. Lot 8, the other lots, heck they are even doing some work to improve the view of the river from the new bike trail. Why not build next to just like they did with Old Commiskey Park in Chicago?

Speaking of Chicago--I have this dream: Obama and family show up for the DCU Freedom doubleheader because the girls pester their parents to attend. Fenty shows up because Obama is going. The place is packed and Obama asks Fenty why everyone is booing him...he explains that the team is leaving. Then he rethinks the whole thing on the way home and calls Victor MacFarlane the next day. This is my dream.

Posted by: mbetka23 | March 25, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

again, all the land that RFK and its parking lots are on is owned by the federal government. It was leased to the District in 1960 for 50 years or until the time the stadium was no longer is use, whichever came second.

Doing anything on the RFK site would take years of red tape and would probably not be approved the federal government anyway.

Posted by: Cavan9 | March 25, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to rehash this dead argument but someone please refresh my memory. I was jogging behing RFK on Monday evening and just looking at all of that space. Lot 8, the other lots, heck they are even doing some work to improve the view of the river from the new bike trail. Why not build next to just like they did with Old Commiskey Park in Chicago?

Posted by: mbetka23 | March 25, 2009 12:52 PM

My head just exploded in a thousand pieces. I'm only typing through muscle spasms.

Posted by: Kev29 | March 25, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

@Cavan9 -- I disagree. Reportedly, there are substantial Superfund cleanup issues at the RFK site (that's why the Redskins gave up on building there), but I don't think the federal lease is a big hang-up. Federal workers like the Redskins. They'd love to approve some activity for the site, perpetuating the lease until the Redskins can be lured back.

Posted by: fischy | March 25, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

afadgsafhgd:

The delegates from PG at the State house are both strongly in favor of the bill. I would assume they've got more sway with their colleagues in Annapolis than the county council does.

delantero:

Did it strike you that perhaps MacFarlane judged entertaining people totally unwilling to work with him as a waste of time?

Building a stadium in DC, after the Nats debacle, is toxic unless your stadium is going to house the Redskins. Even with a winning proposal on the table, the only council member crazy enough to say anything in its favor was Marion Barry. Everyone else knew that when District voters hear the word "stadium" and your name attached, you're in trouble. Fenty, who was anti-Nats stadium, has approval ratings through the roof.

I would love a stadium in DC, but time is running out (both on RFK's ability to not collapse and MacFarlane/Chang's patience about losing millions a year) and there are multiple expansion cities that would take DCU tomorrow. Even if we get a stadium in the District, it seems very far down the road at this point. The team has emphasized several times that waiting forever isn't an option.

As for your 2nd post about the rent, my memory is of the figure being higher (like $2 million?), but I have no idea where that information would even be.

b1968k:

Call me crazy, but I think if there was a single site in the city that was at all viable, MacFarlane wouldn't have publicly committed to PG. The team knows that a PG stadium is further for over half of its fan base, and that PG has a negative connotation for most of the area. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in them, but I really think that if there's a reasonable place within the city, we'd still be looking there. The fact that the team is repeatedly and publicly committing to PG speaks volumes.

asfoolasiam:

I think most of us would agree to that. It is playing with someone else's money, but it's a reasonable solution. Not only will it help assuage those nervous that the projections are too high, but it will help prevent DCU from appearing to disbelieve its own figures.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | March 25, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

We need to let the Council members know that if they kill this deal and DC United leaves town then we will never spend another dime in their County again. I am also a Redskin season ticket holder. If this forces DC United out, I won't so much as buy a stick of gum at FedEx Field. If I'm out of gas then I'll walk to Anne Arundel County. I was planning on moving back to Prince Georges County after my daughter graduates but I won't do that either.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 25, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Memo to front office:

Don't order those new P. G. United business cards yet.

Posted by: lgm6986 | March 25, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"So what is the true financial story for United at RFK? Rent is $1 million/year, correct? What do they get out of concessions/parking, etc?"

It's $1.2 million, per David The Nakamura: Feb. 13:

Q: You've written that United will pay $1.2 million in rent to RFK, each year for the next two years, and will control parking and concessions revenue -- is that arrangement new?

David Nakamura: yes, I was told yesterday that those are new terms being finalized between the team and D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission.

Posted by: fallschurch1 | March 25, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of the bike trail that runs into lot 8, has anyone been by the team store lately, or around RFK and noticed any new bike racks close to the gates? Wonder if KP has really mentioned it....;-)

Posted by: DadRyan | March 25, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

preliminary forecast:

Saturday Night: Showers and thunderstorms likely. Cloudy, with a low around 52. Chance of precipitation is 70%.

2008 redux!!

Posted by: gode | March 25, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

preliminary forecast:

Saturday Night: Showers and thunderstorms likely. Cloudy, with a low around 52. Chance of precipitation is 70%.

2008 redux!!

Posted by: gode | March 25, 2009 4:27 PM

Glad I'll be tucked in a watering hole watching on TV - alongside the US match at 9.

Posted by: Kev29 | March 25, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

There are no sites inside DC, yes I heard the mayor say there were 3 others he'd like MacFarlane to consider, but I have yet to see him say where they were. It's obvious after the Poplar Point debacle that Fenty will never let United build its stadium in DC - even after United lobbied Congress to give the land to DC in the first place when the DC Gov't asked United to help, and without that help, it wouldn't even be possible for DC to get that land for tax purposes (though empty land gathers no taxes, so the Feds should take it back).
Fine, let the land fester as it always has. Yay, that'll show us.

The idea that Lot 8 was ever offered as a place to build a stadium is preposterous at best, the city has no such authority, it does not control that land for anything other than RFK stadium as it exists today.

I'm not sure if this "commitee" vote really means anything at all or is just some members grandstanding and throwing a little 3-year-old-like tantrum that no-one offered to sweeten their pots during the early negotiations. Or maybe its just grandstanding for future Council Chair bids so they can say they tried to keep those evil stadiums out of PGC.
I am way more interested in why the proponents on the board abstained from the vote or skipped the meeting altogether - I haven't read any info on that little detail in the Gazette or Post.

Posted by: dcufan | March 25, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

WTOP had a nice interview with Kevin Payne yesterday. It was nice to hear a pro stadium voice for a change.

http://www.behindthebadge.com/2009/03/audio-kevin-payne-on-wtop.php

Posted by: blackandred777 | March 26, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company