Might as well have a thread for reaction to McCullers comments. http://www.thecrew.com/news/2013/03...ccullers-discusses-possibilities-crew-stadium I find it interesting that the Crew put out this article pretty much unprompted.
So either he heard something bad about the Mexico match, or we're talking about building a new stadium
The company that would negotiate rights to include any future stadium during said contract. Not surprised with the article, not the first time this has been publicly discussed by management. Probably plenty of posts in the past to go through all the benefits of a new stadium. City is going to need to pony up some money this time around though.
I would assume that the deal would apply to both stadiums, like pay us x/million dollars a year now but in 5 years your name gets put on a brand new stadium in y prime location
I was reading the article like this could even be leverage for a new stadium. Like, "Hey, we have potential sponsors, but only if a newer stadium is built." Maybe that's pie in the sky though.
That's what I would think. I remember it being asked about in Dispatch articles have they had articles on the teams site on the subject? Yeah I honestly didn't have a desire to necropost the last thread about a new stadium.
That would be a lot of money to throw at something that they don't know for sure is going to be built unless something happens like Hope Depot did with the HDC and supply building materials.
Many of you may have heard this before, but I'll repeat it for those who haven't. Mr. Hunt was a very approachable guy, and one day he was at Crew Stadium and ended up, somehow, talking with someone you've all heard of (actually a KC fan, but I won't use his name just in case. Anyway, the fan asked Mr. Hunt about putting a roof on the stadium and he said that, in retrospect, it would have been a good idea but, like installing yellow seats which are very pretty but which show up as glaring empty places on TV when there's nobody in them, the had to learn stuff as they went along. The problem with being first. Anyway, he said he had consulted with an engineering firm about retrofitting a roof onto the place and was told that it would coat as much, if not more, than the original price of the stadium, because the place was built as a free standing structure and would not support one, so essentially you'd have to build a freestanding roof to cover it. You can't just tack one on. What I've always taken from that is that CCS had a real limit in terms of improvements, and it would reach the point where it made no sense to expand this or that when, in the end, it was going to have to be replaced before any really significant improvements could be made. Otherwise you were just throwing the money away on a building which you're going to handover to the Fair Board anyway. In any case, as I recall they have a 25 year lease on the land it sits on, at - I think - $25,000 a year, which is renewable for another 25 years at the team's option. I've always assumed that there was no way on Earth they would be there that long. Hunt SPorts, as we all know, tosses nickels around like manhole covers, but right now, today, they could write a simple check for $250,000 to fulfill the balance of the deal, hand over the keys to the Expo people and walk away. And eventually I think that's what will happen since, while my math is shaky at best, if you can figure a way to increase your income by just $250,000 the first year in a new place, it's a wash.
Adding to what Bill said, you could also see them keeping the venue with the $25,000 lease and using it for events, concerts, etc. even if they build a fancy new stadium somewhere, rather than letting the Fair folks do the same. On the naming rights carrying over, think of it like getting in now for cheap and then getting a bonus of being attached to a new stadium when built. If a 8 year deal is signed at a reasonable rate for the current digs and a new stadium opens 5 years from now the company would get a little something for nothing. You never know when you're going to hit the jackpot with these kind of deals. Gliden did for sure, from here to eternity every photo of the Crew 2008 MLS Cup Championship season will have their logo in it somewhere.
MM's statements aren't particularly groundbreaking. But I do wonder about one thing he says. Actually, I doubt it: "We always want to stay competitive. We don't want to give anybody any opportunity to think that USA-Mexico should be anywhere but our stadium for any reason," he added. "That would be a return on an investment to do some things to make sure we continue to be the frontrunner for this match." I would hate to lose US-Mexico. But lose it we will, someday. If we don't beat Mexico here in September, our run will be over. Eventually, though, as the sport's fanbase continues to grow in the States, as newer and better stadia go up, some other city will land this game. My point being, you can't base an argument on potential stadium upgrades or a new stadium on one game played every four years. Plus, as much as the Crew organization and Crew fans LOVE having US-Mexico at Crew Stadium, I'm anything but convinced that the city and most of the residents of the Greater Columbus MSA care very much.
If they went to the burbs they could throw it where Polaris amphitheater use to be. There are now close hotels and bars. They could then call it the cabelas stadium and make traffic even more fun up there. I know the pipe dream is to be downtown but I can't think of where they would put it. Anyhow I don't see the hunts putting money into a new stadium and it for sure won't be financed by a tax vote
If we beat Mexico in CCS again this year USA Soccer should sponsor the stadium and move its headquarters to Columbus.
I would think that there is a clause in that for the Hunts to keep the management rights, that they must keep a pro team at the site, so then they couldn't just use the building for other things without a footy team.
Columbus Crew Stadium will NOT host the Mexico game in 2017. It's a damn miracle we got it four times in a row as it is. But with other stadia going up, the time has come where that game can go elsewhere. I would say that even if the Crew were playing in a shiny new downtown park by that time, Columbus still wouldn't get it again.
Columbus Crew Stadium WILL host the Mexico game in 2017.....if the US wins in September. It can go elsewhere, but won't if we continue the streak. It's all about wins in WCQ.
My pipe dream is that the Crew build a new stadium and attached or right at the stadium they build in conjunction with USSF the US Soccer Hall of Fame. It would guarantee US games in Cbus to get people to go the Hall of Fame. Give one more reason for other supporters to make the trip (good for rivalries). Ohio has Fooball, Rock and now Soccer Hall of Fame. USSF gets a permanent building attached to a MLS original with US soccer history. Share staff, shared cost, etc. I said it was a pipe dream.
Anyone really think HSG would pay for a new stadium? Come on now. Also if the streak were to end, this year would be Mexico's best opportunity. The weather won't be freezing cold and they have a good team. The USMNT on the other hand, has issues. I realize we're months away, just some things to keep in mind.
I agree. All signs I've seen and rumors/rumblings I've heard say the same thing. Actually, I'm expecting an announcement next week so the marketing group can use it as a fishing lure for partial season tickets.
I don't think there's a suitable place downtown for a new stadium. They should definitely get away from the fairgrounds though.