View Full Version : Obstacles Facing New DCU Stadium - Wagman, SoccerTimes
JJJ3
16 Mar 2007, 05:11 PM
I just saw this article -- some interesting observations, but nothing dramatically new. I was not aware that talk has picked up recently about the Skins moving back to the RFK site with a new super stadium.
http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2007/mar12
seahawkdad
16 Mar 2007, 05:45 PM
One reason that there's nothing dramatically new is that it's a year old:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Monday, March 12, 2006)
It's a very confusing article. It starts out citing the ownership finally being in place (last year's group, by chance?) and later states something will happen that has been wrapped up months ago:
The House of Representatives has essentially approved it, the Senate will follow and then the President will sign the bill. All this could possibly be done in the next few months; but only then does the real fun begin.
Must be a recent blog just repeating an old article. And from what I've read, there's a lot of opposition to Snyder's building a new stadium on the RFK site.
JJJ3
16 Mar 2007, 11:42 PM
Sorry and thanks for catching that. The article is on the home page of Soccer Times today, which made me think it was a new article. And, of course, we do have a new ownership group that is actually in place, as opposed to the group last year.
Who the hell runs the Soccer Times website? I remember when it was the gold standard for soccer websites on the Internet. Thankfully, it has been surpassed by far better ....
Sanguine
16 Mar 2007, 11:47 PM
I think the date is a typo, since March 12 was a Sunday in 2006.
MattMathai
17 Mar 2007, 12:35 AM
Who the hell runs the Soccer Times website? I remember when it was the gold standard for soccer websites on the Internet. Thankfully, it has been surpassed by far better ....
Gary Davidson, I think. Or he used to. Wagman was ill, I think, so the reporting fell off. I used to see him on the plane to pretty much every game I went to (and I know he went to a lot of others in addition.) Lately, not so much.
I used to love that site. Now it seems to concentrate more on occasional US national team coverage.
Falc
17 Mar 2007, 12:42 AM
The following from the article should tell us that 2006 was a typo:
Although it has not been admitted publicly by any of the parties, SoccerTimes has learned that the new owners of the team have offered to build the new stadium without any public funds in exchange for the development rights to the entire tract. Since the new owners, led by Victor MacFarlane, are urban developers of national repute, District officials seem, at least privately, to think this would be a win-win deal.
MacFarlane and the new owners were not around a year ago. This article was posted last Monday and is current.
seahawkdad
17 Mar 2007, 07:58 AM
If it's current, then why does it also say that passage of the land transfer bill is waiting for the Senate vote and the President's signature? I can also infer from the wording that the House has not yet actually passed the bill.
To show the quote again:
...The House of Representatives has essentially approved it, the Senate will follow and then the President will sign the bill. All this could possibly be done in the next few months; but only then does the real fun begin.
That's already been done.
If it's current, then it's pretty unresearched journalism. The concerns raised, however, sound valid.
I suppose it could be that Wagman pulled an old article out of his hard drive and updated parts of it.
Very strange.
Falc
17 Mar 2007, 08:07 AM
It is current in that it was posted and written for this past Monday, not a year ago. The passage of the land transfer occurred last fall, correct? Not over a year ago. As for accuracy of what was written, that is a different issue.
JeremyEritrea
17 Mar 2007, 08:47 AM
I think the date is a typo, since March 12 was a Sunday in 2006.
Uh oh, ten minutes to Wapner.
;)
MAVSFAN82
17 Mar 2007, 11:12 AM
What's wrong with FedEx Field that makes Daniel Snyder want to move back to RFK? What happens to FedEx Field if Snyder moves back to RFK?
captinboondoggle
17 Mar 2007, 11:15 AM
If there were real news about the stadium, goff would be reporting it...after someone woke him up.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
JeremyEritrea
17 Mar 2007, 11:29 AM
What's wrong with FedEx Field that makes Daniel Snyder want to move back to RFK? What happens to FedEx Field if Snyder moves back to RFK?
What's wrong with FedEx Field? Jack Kent Cooke built it, that's what's wrong with it!
Mountainia
17 Mar 2007, 12:11 PM
What's wrong with FedEx Field? Jack Kent Cooke built it, that's what's wrong with it!
Does that explain why they don't win, either?
Falc
17 Mar 2007, 03:48 PM
What's wrong with FedEx Field that makes Daniel Snyder want to move back to RFK? What happens to FedEx Field if Snyder moves back to RFK?
FedEx becomes an SSSS ......
Super Soccer Specific Stadium
Just think of the big concerts that could be held at that place! Monster trucks! Super X Games! Maybe even the MLS Cup!
Stan Collins
17 Mar 2007, 05:11 PM
What's wrong with FedEx Field that makes Daniel Snyder want to move back to RFK? Absolutely nothing, it has made the Skins the most valuable franchise in the NFL by a wide margin ($300 Million difference over #2). Which is why DC should be damned suspicious of any overtures from Snyder. He must be looking for a helluva deal to get him out of what's already a very good situation.
The five most valuable NFL franchises, according to a Forbes magazine survey:
1. Redskins, $1.423 billion
2. Patriots, $1.176 billion
3. Cowboys, $1.173 billion
4. Texans, $1.043 billion
5. Eagles, $1.024 billion
AlecW81
17 Mar 2007, 05:49 PM
Absolutely nothing, it has made the Skins the most valuable franchise in the NFL by a wide margin ($300 Million difference over #2). Which is why DC should be damned suspicious of any overtures from Snyder. He must be looking for a helluva deal to get him out of what's already a very good situation.
Last I saw the Skins were also the most valuable Franchise in all of Sports.
Dan in DC
17 Mar 2007, 06:35 PM
It would be a real shame to see the Redskins back in town. It makes little sense to use real estate in our quickly shrinking city for an 8 event per year facility.
I was looking for my wallet after hearing all the city leaders gush about the Redskins at the DCU ownership announcement. :(
NattyBo
17 Mar 2007, 06:44 PM
It would be a real shame to see the Redskins back in town. It makes little sense to use real estate in our quickly shrinking city for an 8 event per year facility.
I was looking for my wallet after hearing all the city leaders gush about the Redskins at the DCU ownership announcement. :(
I highly doubt that if the Redskins did eventually move back to DC that their facility would be so poor that it could host NFL games and only NFL games.
Dan in DC
17 Mar 2007, 07:01 PM
I highly doubt that if the Redskins did eventually move back to DC that their facility would be so poor that it could host NFL games and only NFL games.
Who's going to use the facility? Just the thought of all those empty parking lots for a Dallas-sized stadium horrifies me.
JeremyEritrea
17 Mar 2007, 07:08 PM
It would be a real shame to see the Redskins back in town. It makes little sense to use real estate in our quickly shrinking city for an 8 event per year facility.
I was looking for my wallet after hearing all the city leaders gush about the Redskins at the DCU ownership announcement. :(
8 event per year? Not quite. And if Snyder manages to build a dome in DC and the NFL elects to bring just one Superbowl to the city, the financial impact would be huge.