Whenever NYCFC finally gets a stadium, it better be somewhere that can expand to 100,000 seats so that way the club never has to do this ever again...
Hypothetically speaking if they ever actually need to expand to a full size stadium, they can totally move to NJ. If they really have that much support literally no one will have a problem.
100,000 is pretty crazy, even NFL teams don't go that high. However I do agree that I hope they do plan to have the ability to expand in the future to the 45-65 range if the club and league really take off.
The point is overkill so that you assure this doesn't need to happen again. BTW, AT&T (Cowboys) Stadium can do 100,000. Their home opener had like 105,000 -- and they lost, to the Giants. lol
As long as the stadium is being built with expansion in mind it´s rather easy to expand capacity.. It´s when you have to tear it down things get bleeding expensive.
When is the next scheduled public meeting for the Bronx stadium location? Hopefully then we an get a peek at how negotiations have progressed.
Well, as the talks with the City are in progress I´m positive that when NYCFC hosts a public meeting the talks have been positive.. It´s a logical next step
According to the conservative newspaper NY Post, liberal Mayor DiBlasio was booed twice by Mets fans at the baseball team's home opener. The reason for this is not clear. The mayor mentioned that he is a sports fan. http://nypost.com/2014/03/31/mets-fans-fight-brutal-weather-for-opening-day/ Just mentioning this because DiBlasio is the main obstacle to an SSS for NYCFC.
Yeah, all we know is that he was unhappy with some of the subsidies in last fall's agreement. Other than on that point we don't know much.
Quite honestly if you had to list the "Top 10 Reasons Why New Yorkers Boo de Blasio", his opposition to a SSS would rank around 15.
Hi All. Just joined the forum - really wanted to comment on this issue actually. Firstly, let me address the skepticism about the Yonkers stadium (we should call it the Yonkers stadium, not Westchester, because the City of Yonkers is really a world on to itself). At the Yonkers Mayor's major address, the State of the City on Wed. April 9th, he addressed this issue and made it a reality - Yonkers wants a professional soccer team and stadium to call home. It's no longer a rumor but a reality - and whether you believe it or not - I saw it coming a long time ago. Whether it happens has yet to be seen, but coming from the area, I can tell you the writing was on the wall a long time ago. And this is why: 1) The reality is that building anything within the city limits is always an issue. But it is especially an issue in crowded areas where many people live. We all know about Bloomberg's failure to bring the Olympic/Jets Stadium. 2) If you know anything about politics, it just isn't feasible with the new mayor. I hate to inject anything political here, but you have to if you want to seriously discuss this. De Blasio was elected on a "man of the people" populist message focused on decreasing the gap between the rich and the rest-of-us. His priorities are education and housing for all and giving huge tax breaks or handouts to build a soccer stadium (which apparently is what these NYCFC owners want) is not going to jive with the man that just got elected. He's already way under fire and hasn't even been in office six months. You think he's going to have NYC taxpayers foot the bill for a soccer stadium??? Ain't gonna happen. 3) We saw the reaction in Queens with the stadium and while it doesn't seem anywhere near the reaction of that to the proposed Bronx site, there still doesn't seem to be huge public interest in the BX. I've seen news reports on CBS and such (whether distorted or not) that kind of paint a negative picture of the whole deal. 4) Yonkers is a great location because it is metropolitan, culturally diverse, large city (one of the largest in state FYI) and most importantly, very, very business friendly. The politicians in Yonkers have always been giving many tax incentives and deals to big business. In fact, big retail has practically taken over large swaths of the city. But believe me, if it moves forward, I doubt it will be a temporary deal. They're not going to spend a huge chunk of change on a temp home, that will be abandoned in short time - not in this economy. With regard to the issue of it being New York CITY 's team - I agree it would look very bad to move the team to outside the five boroughs after making that the centerpiece of the ENTIRE CONCEPT. However, I think the team owners made a HUGE MISCALCULATION about marketing and promoting the idea of a five borough team WITHOUT HAVING A STADIUM DEAL IN PLACE. I know some seem to believe they're not going to walk away from what they've said, but be honest - you know people say one thing ALL THE TIME and then do something entirely different. Even Bloomberg (who bent over backward for big businesses) couldn't get the Flushing Meadows deal done - I don't think NYC politicians (especially freshly elected Mayor De Blasio) have any interest in this deal. People are saying it can't be called NYC if it isn't in NYC and I agree but you could just change it to NEW YORK FOOTBALL CLUB - I mean, it is still the STATE OF NY. And plenty of teams go by the NY title without being in the city. When you say New York - it's more than the City, it is a Metro area and a State as well - (NY Cosmos, NY Red Bulls, NY/NJ MetroStars, NY Islanders etc). Finally, and perhaps most controversially, I really feel that MLS is going about this whole expansion thing in the wrong way. That's a much longer conversation, but I just want to focus on NY 2. I hear the few supporters I know of NYCFC say that NY2 will be a success because of this "Field of Dreams" "if you build it they will come" philosophy. The typical response to the criticism that Red Bulls' lacks passionate support is: "It's too far away. It's not in the city. It's inconvenient, etc." I don't think that's the reason however. Look at other sports teams outside of the city limits - the Jets and Giants have packed stadiums. Hell, even NY Cosmos in the glory days had sold-out (or near sold-out) attendance way back before soccer was as popular as it is today. Whereas the Red Bulls can't fill their much smaller stadium often. It's got LITTLE TO DO with location within the city. The reality is this - NY is actually a fairly soccer friendly place. But the issue is that most of the people that follow the sport are connected to culturally bound, ethnic soccer teams and have little or no interest in what many view as "low-quality" MLS. European immigrants (Italians, Greeks, Irish, etc) which were first or second generation during the Cosmos time in the 70s are now replaced with third or fourth generation Euro immigrants that have little or no connection to soccer. These kids (not all of course, but many) are too far removed to be into soccer. Outside of some really tight knit ethnic enclaves, you don't have too many Euro immigrant 3rd/4th generation kids into soccer. These Euro immigrants have been replaced by Latin American immigrants. These people are truly soccer mad, but still don't support MLS (at least not in NY). They are in touch with their teams from their homelands (and so are their children). In fact, Mexican teams are among the most popular in the entire U.S. - and they have a rivalry with American squads which of course poses an obstacle to getting them to attend MLS games. Also, ticket prices are way too high in NY and many of these immigrants couldn't afford to attend MLS games on the regular, even if they wanted to. The fully assimilated American kids in the NY area play soccer as kids but don't (at least not yet) grow to watch and support it as adults. It's not part of the American assimilated culture in NY, whereas in Seattle or Portland it is. Another major problem (besides this cultural issue), is that NY is really a very superficial place. I'm not denigrating it, but let's be honest New Yorkers want either SUPER STARS or WINNERS. MetroStars/Red Bulls has been pretty erratic and not successful in the trophy department. And there really are no SUPER STAR players capable of winning the imagination of the public in Red Bulls. Yes, Henry is great but he's not a known quantity outside of soccer fans. Pele was an international superstar that every one knew and until NY can bring that type of player or win a lot of trophies / become a dominant team, most NYers will not be too interested. Another issue is media bias. The NY sports media is really old-world and still views soccer as a "foreign, third rate sport." How do I know this? Well, I have a friend that works in the NY sports broadcasting arena and he tells me that behind the camera/mic a lot of these sports guys HATE SOCCER. My friend, who's not a big soccer person himself, even started becoming anti-soccer after working at these places for a while. The local News networks generally only cover soccer when it is World Cup or Euro Cup time. I've only seen the Red Bulls covered once - when they lost the MLS Cup final. Okay, that's enough. I bored you all to death. Sorry. I just needed to get that off my chest. Thanks.
So what position do you hold in the Yonkers mayor's office? Or are you an intern at NYCFC and the Yankee Stadium push actually did fail? You certainly are pushing an agenda, I'm just curious whose.
*Cough*.. Mayor Mike Spano @MayorMikeSpano Apr 9 Professional soccer would be a game changer for #Yonkers resulting in increased visitors, revenue & entertainment venues
Great to have new blood on these boards, we're happy to have you. But I have to say there are quite a number of flaws with your argument. Some factual, and others very basic ones common to those new to this subject. Great to know Yonkers wants a stadium, perhaps if the Cosmos grandiose plan in LA/Queens breaks down, they might consider your neck of the woods. Certainly building in the city is difficult, but the Jets/Olympics situation was exceptionally so. They require a 70,000 seat plus stadium with substantial room for concessions and parking. Also safely and security concerns (particularly in the context of the Olymipcs and a Super bowl) combine to severely limit what type and places such a facility could be built. Suffice to say, no plot of land in any sort of central area could support it. In contrast this MLS facility is substantially more modest. A sub 30,000 facility poses far less onerous demands on logistics and transportation. It needs far less land and infrastructure and thus can slip into locations the Jets never could. Bronx is one such example, but many other potential places have been similarly identified. It is simply more realistic for a smaller stadium to find a location that a massive one. As someone who would hesitate to vote for de Blasio because I find him too right wing, I totally get your critique. But it's a mischaracterization of the situation. Flushing meadows was a particularly offensive land grab, and was politically unfeasible. The challenges with Bronx, or any other choice is more manageable: That parking garage is bleeding money, and it will continue to bleed money regardless of what happens over the stadium. The city desperately wants it removed. Also, the public subsidies they initially wanted were quite ambitious, and can be renegotiated to the Mayor's satisfaction NYCFC is oil money. And since they are 100% financing the stadium, they don't care what the economy is like. Maybe they build in Westchester, maybe not. Either way the ball is in their court. As to the sports history of NY, I think you're making a number of standard errors. Sure, people will go a long distance to see their team, Giants/Jets, Pats and a dozen other examples show this. Speaking of winning and superficiality is legitimate, but also the case in most markets. The reason location matters to some teams and no others is connection. The Red Bulls don't have a substantial connection with the city, nor do many MLS teams. In contrast people seemingly live and die by the Pats or Giants (Jets?). If a MLS team wants to break in, history has shown it needs to be part of the conversation. Being in the city is part of NYCFC's strategy and I think it's necessary. Finally, you could be exactly right about the media market, but just wait till this June. Every sportscaster, no matter their personal opinion, will be decked out in one country or another's colors. Why? because that's what viewers want. They chase interest. If the team is competent they will create that interest and having YES in their pocket is not a bad first step. This team might be a disaster still, but it seems to me they are doing all the right things to do well.
Exactly. I thought it would be from the Yonkers Mayor rather than NYCFC but I thought I would cover my bases. That was incredibly transparent though and the Mayor wouldn't be crafting posts on Bigsoccer. Likely an intern in the PR department.
Thank you for your welcoming. However, I don't appreciate the assumption that I'm new to this subject. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Moreover, you fail to disprove my points - which I will now break down one by one. The issue with the NYCFC stadium has more to do with location/financing rather than SIZE. Read this report where Bronx residents were very split on this issue. Mostly, the concern for this "smaller stadium" was specifically logistics and transportation. Read the article where residents complain about traffic. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/01/16/bronx-residents-debate-plan-for-major-league-soccer-stadium/ The reality is that the "financing" isn't 100 percent by the Sheik/NYCFC team owners. The property would be subsidized by NYC tax payers - something center-left Mayor de Blasio doesn't want. Free Rent is not 100% financing. Read the article: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...-offers-free-rent-arab-firm-article-1.1544173 Read this article's last few sentences: http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2013/52/soccerstadium_all_2013_12_27_q.html Quote from article: "Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has said he has concerns about tax breaks and other incentives included in the deal Bloomberg’s administration has been hashing out with New York City Football Club officials." Not true - NY Cosmos had no history, yet recorded the largest crowds ever for a soccer game in U.S. (at the time) with a near sell out of Giants stadium. To everyone else, I'm not affiliated with either the Yonkers Mayor or MLS/NYCFC. Just a very well read and thoughtful person who uses undisputable facts to make educated theories. I also want to add that it is POSSIBLE that this could be for the Cosmos. However, I'm not so sure how likely. The Cosmos currently play on Long Island (Hofstra Univ.) and submitted a plan for Elmont in Nassau. They seem to be consolidating a base in the Queens/Long Island area. To go from Queens/Long Island to Yonkers is a huge switch geographically. However, to go from the Bronx to Yonkers (as a back-up choice) makes a lot of sense - Yonkers borders the Bronx and is quicker to get to from Manhattan/NYC than say Long Island. Read this article that details the Cosmos plan along with difficulties in the BX proposal. Read:http://www.empireofsoccer.com/stadium-difficulties-building-23279/
Sorry if I was a bit to arrogant with you up front. But i'm afraid I still don't agree with your characterization of the situation. Following this issue closely for the past year now, I am actually familiar with all the articles you posted. All the folks who participate in this thread(and its twin on the main boards) are starved for news, so any mention of the issue gets posted here post haste. You speak of this I assume: I really can't take the traffic critique seriously. I didn't when I read this article 3 months ago and I don't now. The experience the people of Bronx are used to is YS games, an average of 43,155 people 81 times a year. In contrast we are talking about 25,000 people 17 times a year, almost certainly only when the Yankees are not playing. Thus in my partially professional opinion(I research urban development and transportation planning), transportation will be sufficient and the people will come around. Even if they don't like it, the fact remains that those lots are bleeding money, something has to be built there. Now the public financing is the crux of the matter. Perhaps I was trivializing it before, but I totally agree with you that it's very important. Though the last article you posted concerns FMCP, which is very different from the Bronx and IMO should not be conflated. For an expert critical view of stadium financing, the best course is the folks over at http://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/mls/new-york-mls-expansion-team/ All the articles above are excellent reading on the matter. Of particular interest is their take on the town hall meeting you refer to above: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/...ting-we-like-soccer-but-whats-in-this-for-us/ Looking at the numbers more particularly, it looks like Bloomberg negotiated a deal that was quite sweet for NYCFC. FOS explains it here: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/...cer-numbers-total-city-subsidy-now-at-206-5m/ -We are talking about 99 years of forgiveness over property taxes($60 million) - Free rent(~$25 million) -"Other" tax breaks($21.5 million) This adds up to $106.5 million. If you also add the debt the previous owners of the parking garages owed the city, it adds another $100 million. Blasio took one look at it and understandably balked. This was months ago. The question is... what now? The total lack of news the past 3 months is baffling. Is the deal off? Is Blasio negotiating? did they change sites? are they back to square one? We simply do not know. But the reason I mentioned the parking facility's issues is that I think Bronx will remain Plan A. It's in the best interests of all parties to sit down and come to a new arrangement re: public money and the stadium. It's all about dollars and cents. NYCFC is taking a failing property out of the hands of the city and probably feels they are owed some compensation. the City does not want to give the team "free rent". You'd think it would be straightforward to renegotiate. But 3 months later, here we sit... Correct, my mistake for not bringing up the Cosmos specifically, for they are truly a "special case". There was certainly something special in the air when the NASL come by when they did, and in the modern context the Cosmos were staggeringly successful. I'm not totally up to speed on all the factors, but the celebrity of Pele, Best and Beckenbauer was certainly a significant one. We do know it was a flash in the pan, and over the next few years the league and the team both came back down to earth. They are the exception that proves the rule. They pulled people out to Jersey, but they never forged a lasting connection that kept people coming back to the brand, only to the players. Cool.
Firstly, let me thank you for your apology - it is appreciated. It's fine if you don't agree with my characterization. However, I see you are from Canada. While that doesn't mean you're incapable of developing an accurate opinion on these matters, I (as someone who was born and bred New York and still lives here) feel that those who are on "the ground" so to speak and are monitoring not only the news about NYCFC stadium but ALL OF NYC CURRENT EVENTS AND NEWS are a little better equipped to interpret the situation. I mean no offense to you in anyway. But, you are a little removed from NY's political scene, which is very important in this case. Moreover, (without going into too many personal details) I am very knowledgeable about NY's political scene. I'm not in "politics" but rather actively follow/study/research all of the happenings. And this situation is very much tied to politics. You have to have followed NYC's 2013 Mayoral election to understand this - and someone from Canada may not be so clued into the political scene and sentiment of the people in NY. Let me give you a little primer on this. You can verify my statements if you like but I won't be posting links consistently - this would take too much time. After 12 years of Mayor Bloomberg, the NYC electorate was in the mood for a significant change. While the business community under Bloomberg did incredibly well, the rate of poverty and homelessness reached all time highs. Under Mayor Bloomberg, almost half of NYC residents were at or near the poverty level. The "Occupy Wall Street" Movement took lower Manhattan by storm (and later the rest of the country was following this movement). Bill De Blasio was the only candidate to run on this idea of reducing "income inequality." He won about 75% of the vote. In his campaign, he took aim at Bloomberg's sweet business deals (in particular real estate) and made education, health care, and housing a priority. Since winning election, De Blasio has been under fire from right-wing groups and every move of his has been criticized. He's been focused on a Universal Pre-K program and got into a nasty political fight with fellow Democrat NY State Gov. Cuomo over the funding of the program. The issue at stake - financing. De Blasio wanted higher NYC taxes on the wealthy while Gov. Cuomo wanted no raise in higher taxes on the wealthy. They made a compromise - New York State will institute and pay for Universal Pre-K throughout the entire state without raising taxes. NOW HERE'S WHERE COMMON SENSE (ALONG WITH POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE) HAS TO COME INTO PLAY... How can De Blasio (who was sworn in a little over 3 months ago) give a HUGE HANDOUT to Big Business after he just won an election on a platform promising to do the opposite? You just admitted the NYCFC owners would get a very sweet deal - so it's either De Blasio holds his ground or turns his back on his promises. IF HE TURNS HIS BACK, It would be politically ruinous for him. He can't alienate the 75% of people who voted for him on this idea of stopping tax breaks for the wealthiest. The reality is politicians want to seek election and if he turns his back on the pillar of his campaign, he won't be around for more than one term. It's entirely possible this deal goes through - but all the quiet that you refer to is generally not good. The reality is that NYC is a city of laws, rules, and regulations. Money alone is not enough. You do need the approval of the people who determine the policy. And if they're not on board, how can you get it built? It was clear where Bloomberg stood, he pronounced it loud and clear -he wanted the Queens stadium. However, De Blasio has never stated any support for any stadium. QUESTION TO ALL: Can anyone find any NYC politician currently in elected office (city councilman, etc) who supports the BX stadium? I don't know if there are any politicians in the BX or NYC that support the stadium and am trying to find out. De Blasio hasn't stated anything positive/in support but I don't know of anyone else stating support either. Now look at Yonkers, you have the Mayor actively "campaigning" to get a "mystery team" to build a stadium in the area. There's the difference. In the end, it may happen in the BX and it may not. But silence is generally not a good thing. And as De Blasio gets deeper and deeper into his term (and re-election draws nearer and nearer), this NYCFC stadium becomes less important and more of a nuisance. I just wanted to clarify that the article did mention the BX stadium - and it wasn't good. Here's the full quote: I think the only way the BX stadium happens is if the NYC taxpayers pay nothing - meaning no tax subsidies or benefits to the Sheik. Is that going to happen? And what if Yonkers offers a sweet deal that lures the Sheik away?
I actually tracked the NYC mayoral campaign quite closely, and a number of people I follow are occupy activists who comment on him frequently. As such I totally understand and agree everything you're saying. But the key is you've missed the core of my point. I clearly said, Blasio will not (and did not) go forward with the deal Bloomberg made, and its also given that he will never agree to anything that can be construed as "a HUGE HANDOUT to Big Business" This is my point. IF (big if) the Bronx deal actually happens, it will be because the Mayor and NYCFC will agree to a compromise. Perhaps instead of free rent they pay cheaper rent, or instead of no property taxes they pay a lower rate. No way to know. But I do know that he's not an idealist. He's compromised on a number of issues thus far that proves it(most recently the Charter schools nonsense). He is more than capable of selling a compromise to the public as "the best option". This has been my assumption from the start.
Your posts are awesome and I love you. Sorry if we are moving too fast but I know love when I see it. Nevertheless, the Mayor's name is de Blasio not Blasio. Also, Mr. Vero, I truly do not believe that you aren't pushing the Yonkers Mayor's agenda but I cannot prove it so I have to leave it be. Instead, I'll say that the burden of proof is on you, not us, to provide evidence to support your opinion. Declining to provide links to articles supporting your position because it is too time consuming, when you take the time to write a block of text implies that rather you could not find supporting articles. In addition, having read your information dump there is nothing of substance with regards to the stadium within you writing. You state that de Blasio will not give subsidies because he can't afford to politically. That's all you said and I don't believe that for the reasons fuzzx detailed. De Blasio will compromise and wheel and deal like any other politician. P.S. The Bronx borough president, Ruben Diaz, is for the stadium. To name one politician in favor. I'm surprised you did not know that Mr. Vero, since you are so acquainted with NYC politics.