View Full Version : Nats are primary tenants
neilgrossman
08 May 2005, 05:14 PM
I'm not sure what this means
The Nationals are the primary licensee of RFK Stadium, holding seniority status over Major League Soccer's D.C. United
This article doesn't say much about DCU, but it does give a bunch of info about the Nats' relationship with RFK.
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20050508-010449-2237r.htm
swedcrip34
08 May 2005, 05:23 PM
I read that earlier and don't like the term "seniority". But I wouldn't argue with the Nats being the primary tenants. It just means they get first choice on what dates to play.
Sundevil9
08 May 2005, 05:36 PM
I read that earlier and don't like the term "seniority". But I wouldn't argue with the Nats being the primary tenants. It just means they get first choice on what dates to play.
If you change 'seniority' with 'priority' you just can't argue with it at all.
bigredfutbol
08 May 2005, 05:38 PM
If you change 'seniority' with 'priority' you just can't argue with it at all.
81 home games Vs. 16. Can't argue with that.
Footer Phooter
08 May 2005, 06:02 PM
I don't think this should shock anyone. The Nats are pretty much going to get what they want, and united probably won't.
beltwayrob
08 May 2005, 07:43 PM
Nothing new here. But as fans, we continue to hear about how the Nats are the saving grace of RFK blah blah, it gets depressing to know we have been promised our own stadium for how long now. I really hope the old saying that goes "No news is good news" holds true.
pasoccerdave
08 May 2005, 08:35 PM
it gets depressing to know we have been promised our own stadium for how long now. I really hope the old saying that goes "No news is good news" holds true.
Be very wary when you start hearing "60 to 90 days".
writered21
08 May 2005, 09:05 PM
Be very wary when you start hearing "60 to 90 days".
Or come to the realization that you're reading the MetroStars board by accident.
Given the disparity in dates needed (81 to 16, as mentioned), and they will probably average 25K by year's end, it's no surprise that they are the primary tenant. I wouldn't think, however, that they can march in one day in November and say, OK, we tried this for a year, get this soccer team out of our stadium. I wouldn't think.
BBBulldog
08 May 2005, 09:33 PM
Only one champion at RFK.
Th4119
08 May 2005, 10:09 PM
Of course they're the primary tenants.
They bring in the incredible majority of revenue that the stadium sees. Not only is is 81 games vs. 16, but their average will probably be around double United's.
Some people need to get over their inferiority complexes and realize that while soccer is progressing, it is still second fiddle to baseball in this country. 20 years from now, that might not be the case, but for the time being, it's something we all have to live with.
Footer Phooter
08 May 2005, 10:45 PM
Of course they're the primary tenants.
They bring in the incredible majority of revenue that the stadium sees. Not only is is 81 games vs. 16, but their average will probably be around double United's.
Some people need to get over their inferiority complexes and realize that while soccer is progressing, it is still second fiddle to baseball in this country. 20 years from now, that might not be the case, but for the time being, it's something we all have to live with.
I don't know that it's an inferiority complex, as much as it is the irritation of a new roommate. Compound that with the fact the new roommate is the newest attraction, and local media's ignorance towards United (not everyone), and you get some PO'ed soccer fans. I think most of us realize where the $$ are coming from.
Lloyd Heilbrunn
09 May 2005, 01:13 AM
Of course they're the primary tenants.
They bring in the incredible majority of revenue that the stadium sees. Not only is is 81 games vs. 16, but their average will probably be around double United's.
Some people need to get over their inferiority complexes and realize that while soccer is progressing, it is still second fiddle to baseball in this country. 20 years from now, that might not be the case, but for the time being, it's something we all have to live with.
The status of priority vs secondary tenant has nothing to do with first vs second fiddle. It has to do with what kind of lease agreement DCU/MLS negotiated with the stadium group, if they anticipated possible future conflicts and covered it in their lease to their advantage, then they will get priority, if they did a lousy job with their lease, then they will get what lousy businessman usually get, which is not a whole bunch of consideration.
In other words they had a 10 year start on the Nats in getting terms to their advantage,if they did not,they need to look at thermselves a great deal.....
gocaps
09 May 2005, 01:16 AM
The status of priority vs secondary tenant has nothing to do with first vs second fiddle. It has to do with what kind of lease agreement DCU/MLS negotiated with the stadium group, if they anticipated possible future conflicts and covered it in their lease to their advantage, then they will get priority, if they did a lousy job with their lease, then they will get what lousy businessman usually get, which is not a whole bunch of consideration.
I don't think they had much bargaining power. It was hard enough getting things like a little bit of revenue sharing on parking and concessions (which I'm not sure they ever got) into the lease - much less primary tenant consideration vis a vis MLB. BTW, the city always insisted upon that provision.
Lloyd Heilbrunn
09 May 2005, 01:21 AM
I don't think they had much bargaining power. It was hard enough getting things like a little bit of revenue sharing on parking and concessions (which I'm not sure they ever got) into the lease - much less primary tenant consideration vis a vis MLB. BTW, the city always insisted upon that provision.
Then the city did a good job on anticipating conflicts.I understand the lack of bargaining power argument, but as a the only summer tenant for 10 years you would think they had some.......
gocaps
09 May 2005, 01:34 AM
Then the city did a good job on anticipating conflicts.I understand the lack of bargaining power argument, but as a the only summer tenant for 10 years you would think they had some.......
The city was insisting on it from year one. And its true that United brought in some dough as the only tenant, but its also true that United didn't have much leverage. Where else would they have played? FedEx? Byrd? Navy-Marine Corps? There just weren't any decent alternative options.
scaryice
09 May 2005, 01:39 AM
Isn't United guaranteed two Saturday home games a month, or something like that?
Bootsy Collins
09 May 2005, 02:21 AM
Isn't United guaranteed two Saturday home games a month, or something like that?
And a pony, IIRC!
bofahey
09 May 2005, 10:24 AM
In other words they had a 10 year start on the Nats in getting terms to their advantage,if they did not,they need to look at thermselves a great deal.....
The original lease that DCU signed... going back to when Barry was mayor and the Redskins still played at RFK, provided that MLB would have first priority status if a team ever relocated. This has *always* been the business deal.
And I don't think it's fair to say they didn't get good terms considering the lengths that are being taken to get us a full grass pitch every game.
Even the Miami Dolphins and Oakland Raiders don't seem to get that much consideration during baseball season.
beltwayrob
09 May 2005, 10:40 AM
Even the Miami Dolphins and Oakland Raiders don't seem to get that much consideration during baseball season.
Yeah but its a heck of a lot easier to play pointy ball on dirt. Not to mention they only share a field for like a month and a half!
AndyMead
09 May 2005, 11:34 AM
Only one champion at RFK.
Washington Freedom?