what do you guys think of this? A Queens councilman demands a "Queens" name for a Queens soccer team: http://bit.ly/13gwir7
Honestly - i dont like the idea - and im Born and Raised in Queens but I think it alienates a lot of potential fans. Fans in the other Boroughs might get turned off by it
Despite not being a New Yorker and not really getting a vote, I think a name of Queens would have to be the best option. Distinctive, simple, locatable.
First off, if you name a men's team "Queens", well, you should just give up before you even start. Also, I have a feeling Garber if angling for the MLB job so I think that will play, or at least has played a factor in all of this.
Hey, we could get the dissenters on board by including them on the name. Wait for it. Queen's Flushing Meadow Park NIMBYs
I went to college in Nassau County and knew a lot of people from Queens. The femininity of the name never came up in a ball-busting situation and ball-busting situations were aplenty during that 2.5 year stretch. However, I didn't know Queens existed until I saw "Coming To America" in 7th grade. I've always had a fascination with maps and by then I was watching the nightly news regularly. I had heard of the other burrows that count by then, no clue when I learned about Staten Island. When you ask people where the US Open is played and where the Mets are based, the vast majority of people will say "New York" before "Queens". I have seen enough of it to know it has good and bad spots and is no craphole, especially compared to other cities. I just think the burrow name is too trivial and New York has much better branding potential.
I'm just hoping that Citi being presented like this doesn't confuse the issue with the sss. You don't want conflicting messages right now and if MLS starts bandying about Citi as a temp stadium now, the NIMBYs will use that as ammo to question why it can't be a permanent venue. This was not a good time for that to be brought up. And if it came from the Mets, they didn't do it to be helpful. They did it to get meet their own ends. Even if it might be possible, (which I wouldn't advise, launch this thing right/wait and do it better) what sort of deal will Wilpon be expecting? And how happy will he be to make a good deal after MLS sets up shop next door?
I honestly think the Wilpons would be open to hosting an MLS team for the short term but also this is a play by the Wilpons to get a new parking lot. From 2008 when they were actually interested in ownership, Fred Wilpon was upset that he did not get a new parking lot. When the deal with the city was struck with teh city for the new baseball stadiums, the owners (steinbrenners and wilpons) were promised parity - meaning if the Yankees got a parking lto (which they did) so would the Mets. The Yankees got new park land across the street but the Mets did not ask for that being they built in the parking lot, but it still bothers Fred that he did not get a multi level lot. His Vision when he wanted a soccer stadium next to Citi was to make the lot accross Roosevelt a multi level lot - replacing the spaces that would be eaten up by the SSS. Again, I do think the Mets would be open to hosting the MLS on a temp basis as they are friends with Garber, but I also think they want a parking lot too.
Friendship with garber has nothing to do with any thing... The mets are willing to host Vince mcman and his juiced up wrestlers, a red neck rodeo a monster truck rally and dirt bike racing... SH!T the mets would let just about any one rent out their stadium in order to make money cause they are so broke now...at this point even roller derby at citi might as well be on the table.... ha ha oh man things are so bad at citi that by the end of april the mets will already be eliminated from any Oct playoff hopes....
To have a Citi Field as temporary stadium for the soccer team by 2014 can be a good thing for everyone : for the Wilpons ( to make money, of course ), for the MLS ( to have an even number of teams and above all to have this NYC team in 2014, when there will be the new TV deal ) and for the NYC soccer fans , of course.... What is the official position of the Borough Boys about this important thread ? Will there be some initiative ?
Honestly - we have already told the league to use a temp venuie to get the team in earlier - the league stated to us they want to start in their own stadium...however - that can very well change because right now the league is still trying to get shovels in the ground on the SSS so they will not even bring up any temp solution because opponents will then say- that should be the permanent solution. There are a lot of moving parts here right now - the league knows we feel they should get it in as soon as possible but at the same time - we dont want to make too much noise about citi field because we want the SSS for the team. So much to take into consideration - right now we have to wait until the deal with City Hall gets done - which is hopefully in the next few weeks.
You think it would be possible for MLB to hire Garber? Personally I think he's qualified, but I don't think that Selig has done a bad job all things considered. The only thing is his conflict of interest but interleague play, expansion of the playoffs and the WBC are all positive things that have happened under his watch. Plus he's hasn't had a labor stoppage since the strike two decades ago.
I think eventually Selig will move on - i mean yea - i think Selig has done a good job but seeing how Garber has grown MLS - when the time comes for a change they might want someone innovative willing to try different things. However, Garber might have made his stamp as a Commissioner to help grow a league in size, security and popularity and there is another league right now that is in dire need of that kind of movement - a league that has seen 3 work stoppages in their current commissioner tenure and now is getting competition from Russia. Garber COULD get a lucrative offer from the NHL. Total speculation but seeing how he grew soccer in this country....a league like that makes more sense for him than Baseball because baseball is already where it is. Yea maybe help it grow a little but there will be no expansion, playoffs are perfect - even with the recent tweaks etc.
Also, there are a bunch of Bush II neocons who want the baseball job and have better connections. I wouldn't be surprised if W himself took the job and baseball became America's 5th Favorite Pastime.
If truly the deal with the City Hall gets done in the next few weeks, when do you think that there will be the shoves on the ground ?
Ive told you this - i really dont know - im not in construction and I do not have experience going through the ULURP process. I can not predict that NOTHING will delay this. i think the process is like 6-9 months. If a deal gets done ASAP - like in the next month - then say February with a completion of September or so.........AND THAT IS WITH NO ISSUES AT ALL. Then i could see shovels in the ground late 2013 but that is aggressive dude. We just can not predict what the holdups will be...and there will be some. It has to be one step at a time. Lets get the deal done and see how the process goes. With Bloomberg's backing, hopefully this goes relatively easy but to assume that would be silly...especially given all the bumps we have hit so far.
One of the more strong statements about why City Park is unsuitable for MLS. This is a time where the suitability of an MLB park for MLS needs to be refuted in demonstrative terms. If you continue to nibble around the edges of the argument, enough ppl who are either uninformed or quite frankly think MLS can play out of a sandlot and should be glad of it, will start to latch onto that argument. Vallone's statements kinda played to that segment of the population. http://www.queenstribune.com/deadline/Deadline_011013_ValloneUseCitiFieldForMLS.html But I can understand why MLS couldn't be the ones with such a blunt stance, but I'm happy that it came from someone. This is also the same guy who said that MLS should be fine running a team at Citi Park. Not the best guy to take business advice from. I'm not sure that it's in MLS' best interests. The NBA can get away with that. MLS can't. We already have our only NY team based out of NJ. Then we'd have our true NY-based team that's only named for one borough. That would blatantly ignore MLS' real goal, the entire NY market. And then there's a nice comment on Field of Schemes that kinda reflects my feelings on why MLS needs to keep the Wilpons and anyone else in that area at arms-length for awhile... http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/01/07/4304/mets-offer-citi-field-for-soccer-mls-says-nuh-uh/ Bottom line, there are interests who have moved into the area who will work hard through their own subordinates in government to kill this deal and then expand on their own interests. Like it or not MLS still has to contend with the fact that alot of ppl in this country hate, or are indifferent to, soccer. Anyone with any type of interest in the sport's well-being would understand why sharing with an MLB team in a baseball stadium would be an added burden. Even the author of the article, who's at least on the skeptical side of the benefits of a new stadium, seemed to understand the very rational reasons why Citi Park is bad for MLS. It only takes two seconds of thought, that is, if your interest happens to be the well-being of MLS and the growth of soccer in this country.
Honestly though - while there is opposition - the opposition is NOT making as much noise as they could be right now - and yes - there are the "NIMBYs" in that area but they will be outnumbered by the soccer fans that love the game and want to see it.
I hope so. I just don't want MLS to take that for granted or underestimate how much anti-MLS sentiment can be stoked against an "upstart" league that doesn't know it's place.