Welcome to the comprehensive thread for all discussion about the prospects of a bringing a MLB team to DC and the variety of ramifications that such a development would pose for DC United and soccer generally at RFK. Let's try to keep this discussion fairly civil and serious. That means, specifically, we should abstain from baseball bashing and concentrate on the real DC United, RFK and general soccer issues at hand. In the future, unless a moderator thinks there's good reason to do otherwise, all threads on this topic will be merged into this one.
just my 2 cents (ok maybe 5 cents - it is kinda long) I have been a lurker here for a good long while (as evidence, this will be my 5th post) but I have been following things closely concerning DCUnited and baseball. I am a DC United season ticket holder for three years now, and went to games for a good time before that. I also happen to like other sports (desperately rooting for my alma mater, Kansas, in the Final Four). Unfortunately, (at least on this board), that includes baseball. Thus, I guess I see things in a different light. It seems to me - at least from what I have been able to glean from the papers and this board - that instead of seeing baseball as a negative, United fans could possibly view it as a positive. First of all, for baseball to use RFK for several years they are going to have to put some serious cash into the place. That can only make your experience as a fan a little more enjoyable. How long did it take to get a video board in the place? How about better bathrooms and concessions? Sure, there may be times when the schedule at RFK is tight between baseball and soccer, but the stadium was built to be for both American football and baseball, (the bouncy stands slide over) so it isn't like they will make United play on a baseball field. Baseball can make the schedule to that the team has homestands that wouldn't conflict with the soccer games. Wasn't there a month last season where United only had one home game (July or August). I just don't see the conflict. Second, I thought someone posted that at one of the baseball community sessions the guy from DCSEC said that the United and the Freedom would only have to share with baseball for a year or so. That makes me believe that they are close to some sort of deal for a SSS. Would sharing for a year (or maybe 2) be that bad? In exchange for a vastly improved RFK and a kick ass SSS? And it is also my understanding that any team in the DC area (DC or NoVa) would play at RFK while their stadium is being built. Finally ... the amount of money DC is going to spend on a new baseball stadium. The city is offering a package of tax increment financing and business taxes (like they used to finance the infrastructure at the MCI Center) as well as proposed taxes on visiting players (illegal right now in DC) to keep from using the city's general fund. Why can't AEG and United hitch a ride on the same horse. Put the stadium somewhere where it could help spur some development and use a mix of private and public money - it just might be the ticket to get out from under the thumb of the DCSEC (like the MCI center, and a proposed baseball stadium). DC has already done the site work for the baseball stadium. How about a riverside stadium at the SE Federal center - right on the metro and lots of government owned land? I guess I am seeing the glass as half full. But then again, that's just me. B
Re: just my 2 cents (ok maybe 5 cents - it is kinda long) Welcome to the DC boards b1968k. While you make some valid points, I'd have to disagree with you on two issues. First I can't see anyone putting any serious renovation money into RFK, especially if Northern Virginia wins the franchise war. It wouldn't make economic sense for the District or the DCSEC to spend what would probably be millions to get RFK upto MLB standards for a team that would end up leaving in a couple of years anyway. Secondly, the bouncy stands do not slide over. What today is the home of La Barra Brava and The Screaming Eagles, would have to be surgically removed to be able to fit a left field which conforms to MLB standards. The cost of that alone is a pretty expensive proposition. Only to see the team bolt after a couple of seasons for NOVA or some shiny new digs downtown.
one of the only things I can think of that would benefit United would be the necessary renovation of the luxury boxes. I was talking with some salespeople from United who said it is nearly impossible for them to sell boxes because they are so antiquated. Any MLB relocation to RFK would necessitate the renovation of the boxes which hopefully DCU could capitalize on. as it was put to me "you have to do the limbo to get in the boxes because the entranceways are so short" #1 Stunna
I was in one of those boxes for a game last year. The sight lines aren't good, and it was SUPER hot in there because there's not much ventilation.
Garber's comments from MLSnet.com “The two projects outside of Dallas and Los Angeles that are the most active are New York, New Jersey, and Washington D.C.. In Washington D.C. there have been discussions and continued discussions between AEG and the D.C. Sports Commission. They have been pretty occupied with D.C.'s baseball bid. But we are convinced that D.C.'s continued desire to secure a baseball team will benefit our team and will provide opportunities for them to be playing in a new facility or in a renovated RFK. .... “The city has to finalize its master plan for sports facilities and that master plan is a long-range plan. And it will include, in their minds, baseball. So it's difficult and impossible to finalize one aspect of that plan without knowing what's happening on the other end. Unfortunately, we have got to wait until they make a decision on baseball before we can move forward, at least with our discussions with Bobby Goldwater, but fortunately, soccer is part of their master plan. At some point if it drags on too long, and we're not able to find a solution to our situation and our desire to be in a soccer specific stadium we'll have to pursue some alternate site for our D.C. United. That could either be in D.C. or within the sort of D.C. general area.”
Re: Re: just my 2 cents (ok maybe 5 cents - it is kinda long) Thanks Chico. Like I said, I have been around a while, just coming out of my shell. I agree that if Virginia wins the franchise, there won't be a lot of extra money spent on RFK, but some repairs and upgrading will have to be done. Here is a link to a story from last October where our friend Mr. Goldwater says what would have to be done (as well as what is on his wish list): http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/11/Sports/Fast_baseball_convers.shtml As for the sliding stands, check out a couple of the photos on these pages. The stands do slide to make room for the outfield. I went to the Expos/Cardinals batting practice a couple of years ago (to see Mark McGuire) and they had set up the field for baseball. This link shows a nice drawing of the stadium where you can see the configuration. http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/rfksta.htm This one shows a couple of shots which may convince you - in fact in one of them you can see the basic outline of the soccer field. http://home.earthlink.net/~losclems/Baseball/RFKStadium.html I still think the key to getting out from under the DCSEC is to not rely on them for land or building the stadium. DCSEC has nothing to do with the MCI Center, despite the fact DC kicked in some serious cash to make the site ready. Why can't United get a deal like that - especially if AEG is serious about building a facility and creating revenue?
Re: Re: Re: just my 2 cents (ok maybe 5 cents - it is kinda long) I think this may be overly optimistic. Yes, the MCI center was funded through a tax on DC businesses, and DC hopes to do the same if baseball comes here. However, I can not imagine that the business community would readily agree to being taxed for another stadium. I may get flamed for saying this, but I don't think that DC United or soccer even registers on the vast majority of the businesses that would be affected by such a tax. Add to the fact that if an SSS was built out by RFK that few businesses downtown would benefit directly from games, I just don't see them agreeing to this. I also think you would have a hard time convincing DC voters that building two stadiums with public funds is a great idea. DC has one of the highest tax rates in the country, yet we don't have a public hospital, our roads need to be repaved, our libraries are closed most of the time, and the list goes on. I love soccer, and yes, I also love baseball, but I can't convince myself that public funds should be handed over so readily to two projects like this in a time of a deficit and other funding shortfalls. (And just for the record, I would love to see an SSS, so if it came down to one or the other, I would be all for it.)
You know what. i really dont care if they have a tax to fund the stadium.. for two reasons.. I want a new stadium and second i dont live in dc.
Re: just my 2 cents (ok maybe 5 cents - it is kinda long) It is completely overly optimistic, I agree. And you are right on target with your other assesments. I wasn't saying it was going to happen. If it were possible, AEG would be negotiating with someone besides the DCSEC. But, I do believe that this is the only way to get out from under the DCSEC's thumb and control a lion's share of the revenue. If it were to happen, as I stated earlier, it would have to be someplace where it could spur development (not RFK - as you noted). In the end, AEG is in the business of making money - they will either get terms that create adequate revenue or they will go somewhere else. Of course, we could always fund it with a commuter tax (that's for you greatscott).
I'm going to fly this under the radar because I know what sort of response it would provoke... but: From a distance: Marc, Three cheers to Tom Boswell for telling us to boycott the Orioles this season. Maybe people will go see soccer at RFK instead? Marc Fisher: No!!! Not another attack of the DC United fans! For the record, I'm all for building a separate soccer facility on the RFK campus, because we will get a baseball team and it will use RFK and it will displace the soccer teams. Can we leave him alone now?
I think the ballpark will be built near the New York Avenue station, and RFK will be, ah, repurposed as Freedom Field at United Park. Or some such combination. Take off the upper deck and the outer shell, redo the plumbing, put in a Munich Olympic Stadium-style canopy, and voila!
While you put a joking emoticon at the end of your statement, this is fundamentally the issue that I have with baseball in DC. I live in the District and have no desire to pay for another public stadium. Yes, that goes for a soccer specific stadium as well! While the cost of such a SSS would be much less than the $200 million for MLB, I'm tired of seeing rich owners get concessions from bankrupt governments so that they will relocate their team to a town. The benefits of a professional team are mixed at best in terms of economic impact to a particular region. $200 million would go a long way to improving some of the more economically depressed communities around the District, such as East of the Anacostia. Or perhaps helping to keep a public hospital in the District. In terms of baseball, I am firmly convinced that the majority of MLB seekers come from Northern Virginia. As such, let the taxpayers of Virginia seek to pay for a stadium. For DC United, I like RFK! I see no reason to change the location in the near future. What would benefit DC United is getting a larger share of concessions and parking. Perhaps to get this, AEG will have to fund renovations to RFK rather than building a stadium in conjunction with DCSEC.
My sentiments exactly. If you need a case study in the "benefits" of a stadium in a neighborhood, take a walk around RFK some day. Note all the lovely restaurants, bars, housing, parks, etc. that RFK drew to the area in the last 30+ years. Best we can hope for is a renovation of RFK. Funded by Uncle Phil as there is no way public funding for SSS will fly in DC. I seriously doubt the public wants to fund a baseball stadium, for that matter, but with luck, DC will get passed over anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33367-2003Apr15.html Expos' Relocation in 2004 Called '50-50'
I have always been of the philosophy that until baseball gets resolved (ie: either the Expos move to DC or move elsewhere--Pacific NW, Puerto Rico, somewhere), Goldwater won't take action on DCU (b/c you don't want to tear up the parking lot to put in a SSS if you'll need those spaces in a year, etc.). And I think that has explained a lot of the delay in the past--DCU talks, Goldwater and Co. nod their head a lot and then won't even sign a long-term lease with DCU. But I think things may have changed. AEG is really pushing the SSS front (and I know Dallas isn't AEG but Hunt). But the strategic vision is now being implemented through energy and action. And I honestly think that DCU is going to push through a SSS regardless of when a baseball decision happens. This is good for several reasons. The Post today (4-16-03) reports that the Expos decision may not happen until 2005--that relo can't happen prior to that. If that's true (and what I said earlier is true) than that would mean 2 years of delay before we see action on a SSS. And, even then, there would be a period of dislocation (where DCU plays on a dirt infield or moves to a temporary location with 10,000 seats). But if the SSS gets started really soon, even if baseball comes to DCU (say, a decision is made in 2005 and the team comes in 2006), its possible there would be NO dislocation. Last of all, I too have always heard that the official word is that the moveable stands retract. But when the Orioles had recently played exhibitions at RFK, they played with a short left field b/c the stands are rusted into place (no reason to retract them when there was no baseball team). So, on paper they could be retracted. The reality is that with baseball not needed 55K seats (and a soccer team that doesn't sell 55K seats), the RFK SA would probably find it easier and cheaper to just remove the stands, not only taking away the BB and SE locations but providing pretty lousy and distant seating on that side of the field.
Actually the last time they played exhibition baseball at RFK they removed the "retractable" stands to put the place in the baseball config they would expect to use for the Expos. Remember the gigantic section of missing seats in the one corner for the first few games of the season that year? I was encouraged by today's 50/50 article too. But I would guess that the building would need to start very soon if we're going to avoid being thrown out of RFK for baseball even in 2005. Whatever happened to the environmental concerns that were raised a few years ago with respect to the parking lot site? Was that ever resolved or will there be a huge expensive and time consuming cleanup job that will have to be completed before our stadium could be built?
Stop the Baseball Rally. Don't make us pay for a stadium. http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0603/89753.html I don't care about baseball, really, but I 1) Don't want Slick Williams fleecing me out of money to build a stadium for a team that will probably leave in 5 years anyway. 2) force me to watch Bobby Convey play in Frederick for 2 years. Lets go set fire to trash cans and smash the windows in city hall. Ok, maybe just hold up signs that say 'I'll go when you pay for it'. And 'Baseball in Portland'.
Re: Stop the Baseball Rally. Don't make us pay for a stadium. No offense to the good people of DC United, but as a soccer fan in Portland I am praying that N. Virginia gets Les Expos. Your area can certainly handle having baseball and soccer, even if it does cause a temporary mess at RFK. I am afraid that once baseball comes to Portland it will be the end of the Portland Timbers and any shot our city has at an eventual MLS expansion team. There will be no political stomach to support soccer after spending $350 million for a basbeball stadium. Maybe we should get together and send money to people in Montreal so that they go to the Expos games and neither of our fine cities have to deal with baseball's mess!
I just don't get it. Has Williams taken a good hard look at DC Public school buildings lately? Sonmething is wrong with an administration which can find all kinds of time and money to fund a baseball stadium, but can't seem to find the money to at least give it's schools a fresh coat of paint.