Here's Mike Debonis' article on the potential pitfalls. Some involve DC politics that non-DC residents might not be aware are going on; so it's worth reading.
Looks like they fulfilled your wishes. http://www.dcunited.com/news/2013/07/plans-for-world-class-soccer-stadium-announced I love how chubby they are.
Just ready the happy news in our local paper. Congrats. Hopefully DCU will be into an SSS in a few seasons. They have so much tradition and deserve a suitable home venue.
Can one of you geographic gods overlay the (proposed) stadium location on a map? Is that 2nd street on the west?
yes but the article is inaccurate in describing how much money the city could fork over in building the stadium - which as Gray said - is not the structure of the proposed deal at all. I hope Debonis issues a revised pitfall article.
That's where what politicos call "educating the voter" steps in. The key to making that happen, is buy-in. If you give all the elected officials a way to buy-in, they will set their minds to "educating the voters", which really does 3/4 of your PR work for you.
I still can't quite read the red sign - but is that a (poorly drawn) fire-breathing dragon, does it say Dragons or something? I told you it's the only thing I care about in reference to the stadium until the shovels go in
The worst part of the article is where he says: Yea, except if you look globally, or even among growing segments of the US population, where black people are huge consumers of association football. Further, in the link he provides (which is god awful), the MLS has a higher proportion of black fans than any sport except for NFL football. As a matter of fact, there are a greater proportion of black MLS fans than black NBA fans!
Man, journalism is such a sham field. You neither have to be accurate, nor know anything at all about an issue and they publish your garbage for mass consumption. Maybe I am in the wrong field.
I think the mapping of sport to column in the table in that link is not clear. Elsewhere, this demographic breakdown has been presented:
That's hilarious. United actually photoshopped into the original rendering a (fat) dad and son in DCU shirts. Love it.
the city will not spend $150M in the deal. DCU spends ~ $150M (or more when all is said and done) to build the stadium. Debonis says the deal is worth $300M .. implying that DCU spends $150M and then the District spends $150M. the District will not "spend" anything. They are proposed to be party to a land swap (the land is assessed but is frankly useless w/o an actual transaction). Now one can say that on paper the land and building of the Reeves center is worth $150M ... but it cannot be realized w/o a buyer. They swap that with Arkridge who builds a building providing rent, commerce, city taxes, and jobs ... I don't see how that nets a negative $150M for the District. In that way the article is inaccurate .. but it was posted before the details were provided today and in the press conference. What Gray said (and I believe the general accuracy) is that the land swap is not billed to the taxpayers ... and this is fundamentally different than how Nationals Park got built. That is why he made the analogy to the Verizon Center and is why I asked what 12th hour problems happened when the deal for that was made.
You have to read the paragraph since they don't put headers in the table. In the last sentence they list the sports according to which column reflects which sport, so MLB first, MLS second, NBA last etc.
That's Lionard Pajoy.. after he retires he's going full Ronaldo. If I were home, I would put new celebrity "interupting guy" into the rendering:http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/23/bride...hotobombs-wedding-proposal-on-reddit-3895098/