Revolution Stadium Groundbreaking "12-24 months" Part X

[quote="a517dogg, post: 29888197, member: 70673"} Just like the Revs, DCU has an owner that neglects them in favor of his bigger club, Inter.[/quote]

Bullickey---thats pure projection on your part. DCU has had ownership groups and managers over the years that have been seen as very committed. The fact is despite committed and more communicative ownership they have not been able to overcome the huge hurdles of securing a piece of land on which to build their stadium---just like the Krafts. They have an even greater reason to get the project done than the Krafts and yet have no been able to get the project done. To say all an owner needs to do is throw money at the project to get it done is baseless conjecture. To get such a project done in some cities is exceptionally difficult

 

Who wants to bet that DC plays their first game in their new stadium before the Revs even break ground?

 

I don't think their every word is gospel, I just don't think they intentionally lie in public statements (although I acknowledge that, like just about everyone in business, will apply spin when it paints a more favorable picture).

Beckham, OTOH, I think is a cowardly, slimy individual, mostly based on the dirty business during his early years in LA. So, sure, I'll believe that publicly he'll say he doesn't want any public funding, while his "peeps" privately pursue a much different agenda.

I think it's not too hard - up to a point, then it becomes hard/next to impossible. I don't think any of the plans have reached that point.

Your NJ example is a perfect one. Plenty of people had to know what was going on, the NY Times had stories about it, but it still took many, many months before it really hit the public consciousness.

I believe that was the question posed.

I didn't say anyone should just accept the situation, just that they shouldn't let it prevent them from enjoying the team in the meantime. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for a long and angry wait. If having a new stadium is a bottom-line requirement for supporting this team, then why support the team? I want a new stadium too, but I'm not going to consign the years until then to just waiting.

I said that explicitly, right up front! I pick on speculating when it's masquerading as factual information.

 

It's a safe bet because they are already ahead of us.... They have a specific site in mind and owners who have to do this for survival. We have neither.

 

Perhaps it was a question from earlier, or you thought it was implied, but the question at the end of the bit you quoted was "wouldn't it be a bit disingenuous for [the Revo FO] to think that fans are going to hear [that they're working really hard in the background but can't tell us for fear of hurting their bargaining position] and just sit there idly waiting for years on end?" You're reply was that you basically figured they hope people would cheer for the team as is, meaning I take it that they hoped fans would ignore everything else. Which to me is like saying a team hopes their fan always ignore a teams record, and will come out and cheer the same way every game, even if the team is 2-50. It's obvious they'd hope that, just like I hope I'll win PowerBall, but I'd hope they have a little better grip on reality than to expect such a thing to happen.

It's nice if you can ignore past performance, and I'll admit that as I get older, I don't get as upset about a team's losing season or whatever as I used to, but as I referenced above, thinking that fans might start ignoring a team's past performance and just treat every game as if they're happy to be there is to ignore reality of sports fans.

ok, fair enough. I agree that it annoys me that idle speculation reported as fact is also a pet peeve of mine.

 

Care to shed some light on that statement? Pretty strong words for a guy who is a pretty well regarded and respected professional athlete/celebrity.

 

Do you honestly think Beckham does the business for Team Beckham? He's surrounded himself with seedy dirtbags who get stuff done.

Respectful businessmen won't get a soccer stadium shoved into places people don't want them.

 

No, but was that the question? He was criticizing him for "dirty business" from his early days in LA, I was wondering what specifically he was talking about.

And obviously Beckham isn't a businessman, he's an extremely marketable figurehead.

 

I think the same might hold true for our favorite savvy businessman.

 

I have no idea who Beckham has surrounding him, so I have no opinion on if they're seedy or not, but in a business everybody has their role, and I'm sure Beckham does his part: which would basically be talking to people who can help him get done what he'd like to get done, making appearances to raise the profile of the organization, etc. I doubt he's an absentee owner, who doesn't really monitor or care what his underlings do, as long as they don't bother him about things he could care less about. Until shown reason to think otherwise, I'd bet he actually cares about getting a team that will be successful on the field and off it.

 

What I meant [but didn't say] was that they'd try to enjoy the team while waiting for a new stadium.

I'm referring to Beckham's actions and [mostly] inactions that undermined Frank Yallop and Alexi Lalas. My source is:
The Beckham Experiment: How the World's Most Famous Athlete Tried to Conquer America by Grant Wahl

He and his "people" forced Yallop out and brought in their own coach, who was an unmitigated disaster. Then he spent an extended period of time pouting and going through the motions (Donovan could barely contain his anger) while the team suffered. They marginalized Lalas and forced him out too. Basically the player's handlers staged a front office coup and were able to succeed because Tim Leiweke was too afraid of offending the golden boy.

It was a pretty disgraceful episode and for whatever mileage LA and the MLS got from the Beckham "experiment", there should have been much more.

 

I read the book. You're taking your own liberties with a lot of the facts.

1.) Yallop had a season and a half in charge, where the team never made the playoffs and lost more than they won. 2.) 2.) Donovan should know a thing or two about going through the motions.
3.) Lalas would be the first to tell you that he wasn't forced out.

 

1) Regardless, Beckham's guy was the one forcing the change and picking his replacement - who did what exactly?

From wikipedia:

On 8 November 2007, Ruud Gullit became head coach for the Los Angeles Galaxy, signing a 3-year contract.[24] His $2 million per year salary was the highest ever given to an MLS head coach. Gullit arrived as replacement for Frank Yallop who was let go after Galaxy failed to make the 2007 MLS playoffs despite having a record signing David Beckham on the roster.

From the get go, Gullit's time with Galaxy was troublesome. Not well-versed in the intricacies and specifics of the Major League Soccer such as salary cap and draft rules, the Dutchman never adapted well to the North American league. The ill-fated January 2008 acquisition of left back Celestine Babayaro (who was brought in on Gullit's personal wishes before getting dismissed quickly and unceremoniously without even getting a chance to play any competitive matches due to extreme lack of commitment in preseason) set the tone for the league campaign that was about to start. After getting blown out 0–4 in the season opener, Gullit clashed with midfielder Peter Vagenas who criticized him for completely neglecting set play practice during training.

As the season progressed Gullit would clash with just about every player, notably Landon Donovan and also Abel Xavier who criticized the Dutchman's managerial style claiming he did not have respect for most of the players.[25] Eventually, it also came out that Gullit's very appointment came in controversial fashion as Galaxy general manager at the time Alexi Lalas got bypassed in the process with the decision coming straight from Beckham's personal handlers – his management company 19 Entertainment as well as his personal manager Terry Byrne.[26]

On 11 August 2008, Gullit resigned as coach from the Los Angeles Galaxy citing personal reasons. This came following a seven-game winless streak. General manager Alexi Lalas was fired on the same occasion.

2) Even if true, that doesn't excuse Beckham. The book's description of his behavior at the time was reprehensible.

3) Maybe so, but he was marginalized by people who weren't even employees of the team.

 

I'm ok with saying that Beckham was a bad boy many years ago, though he's hardly the first player, star or not, who helped push out a coach he didn't like, when the team wasn't doing well. But do you have more recent examples to show he's still a bad boy, and that he hasn't learned and matured? Bob Kraft helped save MLS, I'll give him credit for doing that back then, but I'm not only going to use evidence of many years ago to judge him now. I actually don't particularly care either way about Beckham at this point, though I do think that having him with MLS could help the league, just due to his name it's cache, so I'd just be curious if there was more recent stuff I should know about that would make me feel more negatively about him.

 

Outside of growing tv ratings, there is not much else MLS could have hoped for in terms of the leagues growth since they signed Becks.

Every single other item has improved since 2007: more teams, more stadiums, significant diversity in ownership, team values have gone up considerably, increase in national tv exposure, average/total/median attendances have all gone up nicely, etc etc.

As for LA, they have the leagues largest local tv deal, the leagues largest stadium naming rights and the leagues largest shirt sponsorship deal, the three of which give them a huge financial advantage over the rest of the league outside of Seattle, whose game day revenue is so enormous they can keep up.

To say it should have been "much more" is extremely disingenuous imo, and smacks of someone trying to ignore cold hard facts because they don't fit an agenda.

 

I agree.

And once they reach the point of becoming public, then 99% of the hard work starts. Once it becomes public that is when you finally can get to the real hurdles, fall over, and start again.

As we currently see in NY, Miami and DC, and have seen with almost every stadium build going back to the public failure in Dublin by the Crew, the amount of work that has to be done and the amount of problems that need to be solved is huge once it gets to the public stage.

The real question is why after X years, have we not even started the process of trying to jump the hurdles. My guess is the process can never get started because of the need for public funding.

 

That's right. For many years we have not even been in the "fixin" stage. As they say down South, "I'm fixin' to get started thinking about having a plan to decide what the next steps are.

At least DC has had a couple of real starts and stops where things have fallen through. We haven't even done anything yet that could fall through.

 

This is the point that frustrates me. It appears some people do not want to acknowledge how much work has to happen publicly before this can go forward, almost as if they believe because it is so hush hush that every i is being dotted and t crossed and the deal will be complete when it is announced.

That is not how this works. And that is even more prominent if they are looking for public funding and or land.

 

I don't know much outside of Wahl's book, although I heard (unconfirmed) talk that his people were in Tallahassee looking for tax breaks - which goes back to the main point that I mentioned: that I don't trust him when he says he isn't seeking public money.

To me, 2 years of chaos out of 6 is a pretty big deal, especially when that was the time when the world was checking out MLS because of the Beckham publicity.

Also factor in that Beckham missed most of 2010, their first good year in that stretch, so they basically had stunk for his first two years, had a very good year, another good year without him and capped it off with two title seasons. Should've been more if he didn't come in like a prima donna.

2007 -- 5th, West (9-14-7)Did not qualify
2008 -- 6th, West (8-13-9)Did not qualify
2009 -- 1st, West (12-6-12)Won Conference Semifinals (C.D. Chivas USA 3-2)
Won Conference Final (Houston Dynamo 2-0)
Lost MLS Cup (Real Salt Lake 4-5)
2010 -- 1st, West* (18-7-5)Won Conference Semifinals (Seattle Sounders FC 3-1)
Lost Conference Final (FC Dallas 0-3)
2011 -- 1st, West* (19-5-10)Won Conference Semifinals (New York Red Bulls 3-1
Won Conference Final (Real Salt Lake 3-1)
Won MLS Cup (Houston Dynamo 1-0)
2012 -- 4th, West (16-12-6)Won Knockout Round (Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2-1)
Won Conference Semifinals (San Jose Earthquakes 3-2)
Won Conference Final (Seattle Sounders FC 4-2)
Won MLS Cup (Houston Dynamo 3-1)

 

Perhaps I'm naive, but I'd think looking for tax breaks is what pretty much every business in the country does. Next thing you'll tell me is that they're planning to sell drinks at their concession stands for $5, even though the drinks only cost pennies to produce. Again, I'm not trying to defend him, but I'm just trying to figure out where all this vitriol is coming from. Maybe if I read the book I would feel differently, but having not read it, I can't get over the fact that it was from many years ago, and I'm not convinced he could have changed a bit since it was written, and he became more immersed in the culture here. I'm no expert on the business and player culture of sports in Europe, but it does seem to be some significant differences than the same culture here, so perhaps what he was trying early on was par for the course over there.

 

Yeah at this point it is best to disengage him. He has an obvious agenda against Becks that is creating some pretty strange observations.

 

I don't particularly care if he has an agenda against Becks. Some people have agendas, as you seem to have against rkupp, I'm just curious about the basis of his agenda. I'm a curious kind of guy, and if someone has a different viewpoint than me, I'm not going to ignore that viewpoint, I would actually want to hear why he has that viewpoint, to see if I'm missing something.

 

The difference is that Becks will get a stadium built somehow, so he's a dirtbag, but Kraft won't and he craps out gelato.

 

Stop acting like Kraft is a saint at the same time going after Becks. Not like Krafts hasn't ever tried to sneak around get state money to fund his projects. Rt 1 Bridge, South Boston come to mind.

 

I'm tempted to take that bet. Unless DCU moves the team IMO they are up against more roadblocks to pinning down a place in the DC area than the Revs are in Boston. The only reason I don't make the bet is at my age I'm unlikely to be around to either pay-up or collect