Stadium News and Speculation XXIV: Where Newbies Go to Get Flamed

OK, folks, please offer comments/corrections:

=====

1. Why does DCU need a new stadium at all? Why can't they just stay in RFK?

Several reasons. First, it's almost impossible for DCU to be profitable in RFK. DCU pays rent to use the stadium, while getting no game-day revenues except for ticket sales and sales of DCU merchandise. In particular, United sees nothing at all from either parking or concessions. No money can be raised by selling naming rights. The stadium doesn't have club seating or other premium options that generally make a lot of money for clubs.

Second, the stadium is in poor condition, and the Washington Convention and Sports Authority is not interested in investing a large sum in its upkeep; they're not interested in keeping the stadium for the long-term. As a result, even if DCU were able to make a profit at RFK, they'd have to hit the road anyway.


2. Why hasn't DCU been able to get a stadium built?

The shortest answer: money. It costs money to buy land and build a stadium. If you've got enough money, you can do anything; but DCU's investor/operator, Will Chang, doesn't have an arbitrarily large amount of cash to make this happen. The stadium isn't going to happen without significant additional investment, external financing, or both. By financing, we mean loans etc. It's extremely hard to get private financing in the current economy; so DCU has taken the approach of trying to get public financing. Note, again, that's not the same thing as public funding of the stadium. The idea is that a public entity (the District, or Prince Georges County, or whoever) would issue bonds, and DCU would pay the bonds back using revenues from stadium operations. This essentially means that DCU would be borrowing money (from those who bought bonds) with the credit rating of the bond issuer, rather than borrowing money from the bank with their own credit rating.

The story of why this approach has failed up to this point is long and complicated; but it's important to remember that it's a tough sell politically for many jurisdictions to issue bonds for something like this right now, when many area governments are running deficits. Loan guarantees from DCU, so that there was little or no risk to jurisdictions if revenues from the new stadium fail to meet targets necessary to repay the bonds, would help here; but now we're back to DCU and its money (or lack thereof) again.

Many people feel that little progress will be made until additional investors come on board. Additional investors would improve the financial situation, making it easier to guarantee bond repayment; and if the investors were local, they'd improve the organization's ability to work with local leaders to make a deal happen.


3. Why don't they just build a new stadium at the RFK site?

The land on which RFK and its parking lots sit belongs to the Federal Government. The Washington Convention and Sports Authority operates RFK on that site. The legal terms under which WCSA does so explicitly say that the land is only available to WCSA, and only for them to operate RFK on that land. As soon as RFK is closed down, the land reverts to Federal control. Re-purposing a portion of the land for DCU's use, or a transfer of that land outright to DCU, would literally require an Act of Congress. It would be ideal in a lot of ways; but there's no straightforward mechanism for it to happen short of going to Congress.


4. Is the inability to get a stadium built going to force the team to move to Baltimore?

The Mayor of Baltimore has put forward this idea on more than one occasion, and a study commissioned from the Maryland Stadium Authority looked into it in more detail. It's not at all outside the realm of possibility. However, while DCU has expressed interest in hearing more from Baltimore etc., they've also said that they prefer to stay in DC. So the question then becomes two questions: Will a concrete proposal that works for DCU come from Baltimore? And will DCU reach the conclusion that they have no viable option local to DC, and thus must move to stay alive? Nobody knows the answer to these questions right now.

 

You can add naming rights to the list of things DC can't get at RFK

 

Bootsy good work.

 

Good, done, thanks.

 

Well done Bootsy.

Maybe it's implied in the second paragraph of #1, but lacking serious renovation, RFK will eventually become unsafe.

asitis

 

Eventually?

 

There were only a couple of instances of falling concrete. That's hardly anything to be worried about.

 

And holes in the bleachers dont forget those.

 

Those are a feature. It's in case the lines to the bathroom are too long.

 

I thought that's what the plastic garbage cans in there were for.

 

Falling concrete? Its the hot dogs that make RFK unsafe.

 

Duly repped.

 

I would maybe chop this up into four parts, as I think there are 4 distinct issues here:

1. RFK is economically obsolete. It does not have the capability of generating new revenues. This is why both the Nationals and Redskins found it inadequate and left for other stadiums.

2. RFK is structurally obsolete. The stadium is old and needs repair. The costs of that repair would vastly exceed the costs of building a new stadium.

3. RFK is not a good fit for soccer. RFK is a multi-purpose stadium, the first of its kind (the cookie-cutter concrete donut stadiums). Because it was built for baseball, football, and soccer, the grandstands and sightlines aren't great for any of those sports. Furthermore, RFK is too large for DC United - renovating the stadium wouldn't solve the fundamental issues that DCU faces.

4. DCU does not control RFK stadium. The Stadium is operated by the Washington Convention and Sports Authority. The WCSA charges a great deal of rent (they must, in order to cover the aging stadium's large operating costs) and DCU does not see as much of the parking and concession revenue that they could if they controlled the stadium.

RFK generates a smaller pie than other, newer stadiums. Additionally, DCU does not get to keep all of that smaller pie.

This is good, but perhaps it's worth adding a short blurb about DC and the Federal government and home rule. It's worth noting that the Federal Government was the local government for DC when RFK was built, since RFK pre-dates home rule for DC.

This kind of jurisdictional stuff is confusing, which I why I think these things keep getting asked.

 

Disagree on RFK being a good fit for soccer - I think it's a great for it, generally speaking, I've hardly ever had a bad seat for a soccer game there. But that's a nitpick

 

It's too large for the kind of ticket scarcity United would like to generate to drive season ticket and advance purchase sales, but I agree that none of the rest of the "bad fit" statement is really a reason we can't stay at RFK.

I'd keep the "Furthermore" section and retitle it why RFK is a bad fit for United (or MLS), rather than soccer in general.

 

The stadium really only works for baseball, but it also represents an architectural trend that thankfully died. There's a reason Camden Yards was the revolution that brought down the soulless, multi-purpose donuts.

The slope of the seats in the lower deck is too low for football and soccer, really. Admittedly, the upper deck worked pretty well for any sporting event there, but our love of RFK doesn't have much to do with its sight-lines.

 

Thanks Bootsy, for putting this together, but that's still not going to stop all of the ass-wipes from coming in here to troll.

 

I disagree with the inclusion of this, because to me, this isn't really appropriate for the question. Assuming one agrees with the assertions above, they still aren't part of an answer to "Why does DCU need a new stadium?" They might be part of an answer to "why would DCU *like to have* a new stadium?" but not to why they *must* have one. Put another way, if DCU were in a stadium situation that was stable and with revenues that had them profitable, bad sightlines wouldn't be forcing them to move anyway.

 

The Loud Side isn't that bad (though the near, left side corner is blocked from my view where I stand), but the last time I sat over on the quiet side (near the old baseball 3rd base dugout) I was shocked at how far away the stands are from the field. Combine that with the shallow angle to the seats and it's not a good combination.

Your mileage may vary as to the quality of the sightlines. The biggest thing is size - RFK is too big for United. Even if they renovated it to be top notch, they'd have to pay to maintain a 50k stadium when they really need something about half that size, maybe a little more.

That's a fair point, but I'd note that a) the overall capacity does matter, and b) crappy sightline seats and obstructed views aren't going to generate much revenue, all else being equal.

Those are structural issues with the stadium.

I agree with you in that if I were making the political case for the stadium, I would not lead with this particular argument - but I feel the renovation question will come up, and this is a good answer to that question. Renovating RFK doesn't really solve RFK's fundamental problems.

 

This to me argues for the inclusion and answering of a separate question. Maybe something like this?

=====

5. Why not just renovate RFK?

As mentioned above, the Washington Convention and Sports Authority isn't interested in keeping RFK around long-term, and therefore is not interested in taking on the expense of a major renovation. Even if WCSA were convinced to keep RFK around -- say, if DCU agreed to foot the cost of a major renovation -- it would still be necessary for DCU to acquire from WCSA the secondary revenue streams of parking/concessions/etc. to reach profitability. And beyond all those issues, the level of renovation that RFK would require to enable new revenues such as club seating, to improve sightlines typical to those in a stadium intended for soccer, or to bring maintenance costs down to those typical of an appropriately-sized stadium, would be enormously expensive.

 

I haven't read anything about lights going out or Freddy Adu . . .

Nice thumbnail so far, Bootsy.

 

I'm not sure that section is needed, but if so you might note that RFK recently underwent $18.5 million in renovations ("New dugouts and improvements to the press box, scoreboard, clubhouses and seats were among the changes"; another article mentions field irrigation) and it's still in the shape it's in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12508-2005Jan15?language=printer
http://www.ballparkonline.com/mlb/rfk_memorial_stadium.html
http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/national/rfkstadium.html

 

I'm not sure either; but I think people do wander in here and ask that question (or one like it) from time to time; so it can't hurt.

Fair enough, thanks.

 

thats actually a good point... as much as we hate the nationals and everything about them... we should be thankful for the millions of dollars MLB pumped (made them pump?) into RFK for the couple of years they were using it.

i really dont know *where* that 18 million dollars went (maybe golden toilets in the locker rooms?) but id imagine RFK would be even more of a shithole if they hadnt put it in

i use the term shithole lovingly

 

Great job, Bootsy.

One question: are you sure about the lack of revenue sharing on the parking? I thought there was a new deal a couple years back where the team now gets a portion.