Bronx close to scoring $400M soccer stadium for NYCFC

I was around for MLS 1.0. I have graduated past the worry of the league shutting down. I want to see those initial investors make some money back because they deserve to. So if they need to put a second team in New York and not have the most ideal stadium plan to go with it to help that cause. I am ok with it. That is my point

 

That is some serious marketing spin. Do you work in marketing, because you should with that kind of spin on a negative situation.

 

One could question the commitment of any ownership group (anywhere) if it turns out to be really hard to build a stadium (in the vicinity of where that ownership group wants their team to be housed).

But yes, the challenges (for professional soccer broadly speaking in this domestic market and) in NYC (real estate specifically) are extreme and difficult, but as has been stated the ManCity and Yankees combined resources and experiences would position this specific NY2 franchise just about as well as MLS could have ever hoped, it would seem.

 

MLB fields coordinator: NYCFC, Yankees sharing Yankee Stadium not ideal, but doable

http://soccer.si.com/2014/04/15/nyc...-stadium-mls-mlb-soccer-baseball/?eref=sircrc

I think it is going to be tough to get a decent product up and on the field there until they move venue.

 

Good read at si.com.

"Decent" is a subjective term, and I'd suppose that the "on-field product" that NYCFC offers in 2015-2017 will be just as "decent" as it will be in 2018 (or whenever they get into a different/permanent venue).

There certainly are some benefits to not having to share a venue (or be a secondary tenant), but so much of this is "perception" in the minds of the consumers/fans and their opinion of "the product." There are challenges and benefits to the reality of YS, although it is correct to note it is not an ideal situation (especially in terms of field size and field quality/consistency).

There are all sorts of venue "sharing" realities around MLS currently, and none of them are "ideal" either.

 

You might be correct, but I think that would have more to do with the size of the field rather than the quality of the turf. The grass should be pretty excellent in the outfield and the article states that the ready-play sod on the infield is also very good. Nevertheless the size might be an impediment. However, to play devil's advocate, the field should be wider than some EPL fields and the size of the field doesn't seem to impede EPL quality. Although, obviously EPL teams have higher quality players. I think the product will not be dependent on the field as much as dependent on Kreis and specifically the players that are brought in.

 

From mls.com

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...e-blasio-begins-dialogue-bronx-soccer-stadium

 

The anonymous sources and the spokesperson contradict each other. But so it goes in politics.

 

Even if they build their own stadium in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, this team is a secondary tenant.

 

MLS will be pleased to have a team address in the neighborhood.

Yup, a secondary tenant (eventually/hopefully) in their own venue by 2018, and a venue in NYC.

MLS appears to be happy to make that bed and sleep in it. (Of course, assuming the NYCFC ownership group wants to spend the required money to get their stadium built where they want it.)

 

It seems the anonymous sources are contradicting themselves as well.

There's no ongoing discussion, but if there were, this is what it would (or actually does already) involve...

 

Yes it the dimensions of the field that would be the biggest concern but if that is coupled with a difficult playing surface then it will be tough to get good soccer played there, not impossible but tough.
Most EPL pitches are around 75 yards wide and though I don't know the dimensions allowed by the stadium my understanding is any pitch laid there would need to be somewhat narrower. Not sure if length has the same limitations?

 

Agreed.

And MLS has encountered (and even thrived within) very similar situations (i.e. narrow fields, difficult playing surfaces) in other expansions (in other markets) and during new team launches (across multiple years).

MLS is doing the best it can while operating and expanding/growing within challenging circumstances.

This new franchise as NYCFC will not be a success or failure based only on the "condition/dimensions" of the field. That (field and temp/shared venue) will certainly be a factor impacting the product to some extent -- but there is so much at play within this overall business expansion.

 

Some quick calculations based on images from previous soccer games at Yankee Stadium show a ~70 yard wide field. The penalty area is 44 yards wide, the corner arcs on both side are one yard each. The hashmark outside the field is ten yards from the corner arc. There seems to be between 1 to 3 yards between that mark and the edge of the penalty area. It is possible to play good soccer on a field of that width, but it is harder.

 

What is "mls.com" and the article is very misleading. Especially since it says this, "Two knowledgeable sources told me they knew of no substantive administration efforts to reach a deal on the stadium."

 

"Knowledgeable" and "substantive" may be key words (or descriptors open for interpretation/analysis) within that sentence.

 

Wasn't de Blasio a big proponent of Barclays Center? Which I'm sure received zero tax breaks

 

They may also mean exactly what the article said. That is how I choose to read it. And I get accused of speculating.

 

When you read the article you didn't ask or think to wonder how knowledgeable (the sources may be) or how substantive (the efforts may be)?

Your gut just knew the article was "very misleading" because it is providing some (partial) level of information that seems to run counter to most of your (speculative) concerns and negativity being shared in this thread?

 

The article does nothing to change opinion. Mainly because i read it at face value and dont try to "interpret" every word individually.

I took "knowledgeable" to mean exactly that. By misleading i mean that the title doesn't match the content.

 

I read it at face value as well, and there wasn't much value to it, considering the knowledgeable sources don't actually appear to know much of anything about this latest dialogue between the administration on the key soccer stakeholders. But there is some information in there as to what it would take (a lot of private money) to get some stadium built and what the city is willing to offer (i.e. apparently not much if anything in the way of subsidies).

But to me the article generally reads that if the owners of NYCFC want to spend enough of their own money to get a stadium project done, then the current administration won't stand (too much) in their way other than outlining the expensive and challenging conditions.

The title "De Blasio begins ‘dialogue’ on Bronx soccer stadium" seems to align very well with the quote from the mayor's spokesperson in paragraph 2:

 

Oops, stupid error on my part. Should have been mlsoccer.com. No excuse for that.

Anyway the point being: The de Blasio administration has begun a dialogue with key stakeholders on how to best proceed on the construction of a soccer stadium that also invests in community benefits, preserves public space and provides good-paying jobs," Marti Adams, a de Blasio spokesperson, told Capital can't be overlooked since a lot of know-it-alls were damned certain this was something that never was going to take place.

To repeat what I mentioned about ten pages or so ago, in less that one years time, NYCFC has done nothing but slowly but surely put the organization together. And the last few days have been nothing more but a couple more pieces of the puzzle falling into place.

 

This is the most important part IMO: