Which would make them, by far, the poorest owners in MLS. That liquidation included a conservative estimate of the costs to renovate the stadium as they have discussed (500/600 million). The reported expansion fee for MLS 20 (New York 2) is 100 million. Now, if some investors comes through on that, there will have to be some splanin to do if someone gets in for less. Do the roof? What roof? They're tearing the roof off, supposedly. I guess they're planning some partial roof structure to replace it. It's extremely unlikely that the existing upper structure will be able to support it. The existing roof is an air-supported membrane, not a cantilevered metal structure that has to bear Detroit's snowloading. Then the field? OK, how are they going to do that? They still have to build either the forest of columns to hold it up or come up with some extremely exotic (and expensive) structural system to support that field structure above the spaces that they intend to eventually build over. Then, you know, finish all that out below. People should take a look at those movable playing surfaces they have in various stadia around the world. Those things are supported every 8-10 feet, not floating on spans of 240 feet or more and they surface is likely to be 10%-30% larger than some of those fields. The only thing they have going for them is they got some land, very cheap. I'm going to just have to disagree with you there. This building has been vacant/pickled for some time. It will need some degree of not inexpensive renovations/improvements to make it usable/playable. Buildings that are not being used/maintained tend to fall into disrepair rather quickly with their Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing systems, the air handling system that keeps the place running and the likely replacing the field surface. Or MLS has ignored their silly little plan altogether. Half working also means, half broke.
The proper usage is "you're", not "your". I don't think you'll be able to diagram this sentence. Why did you leave it at my house?
Poorest owners with a stadium that they OWN free and clear. I thought they said 50 mil. You said 500 million. You are correct on the MLS 20, but it is my understanding this expansion fee is for a NY2 team only. You misunderstood what I was trying to say. When I say build the new 'roof', I mean the new field witch will essentially be the new roof for the lower two arenas. I was not talking about a movable field, and I understand that they plan to remove the dome at some point. I bet this new roof/field will be the biggest part of the expense too. All I am saying is they could build this structure first and then years later work on the other two arenas. I agree somewhat, but you can't ignore the positives of owning a stadium free and clear. This part is a lie. They have already spent $6 million on the current structure, and they have already hosted some events. Jury is still out on this, and MLS has stated that they are aware of the interests from the Silverdome group. Half broke with a stadium (with no rent, no mortgage and no government bureaucracy in the way), a growing support group and all located in one of the greatest sports cities on the planet. I would bet MLS is paying more attention then you think.
Steve Apostolopoulos. Just posting for copy-and-paste purposes. EDIT: I might as well post where it came from. Silverdome renovation must wait in line to attract Major League Soccer to Metro Detroit
And they get to pay property taxes on + all the substantial improvements they make. YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!. There's a reason why sports owners prefer to have their facilities owned by some non-taxable entity. They did. They're out of their minds. Think about it. Why would you as a member of the BOG, who just paid 100 million for an expansion fee, then allow some other shallow pocket owner to come in and pay half or less? If MLS didn't allow graduated or cut rate expansion fees in the RSL/CDCUSA expansion round, or any successive rounds, like you know, that goon in Montreal, what makes you think anyone is going to put up with it for Detroit? No, I didn't. What you're talking about isn't a roof. That's not a roof though. It's a playing surface that has to be supported from below and has to support rainfall (and likely some rain drainage from the proposed new seating around it) as it percolates through either a 4-5 foot thick soil bed as it heads to a drainage system that will likely have to account for 100% of the rain that falls on it so that you don't have water damage on your structures below. On top of that, they may have to consider an undersoil heating system to keep the grass from dying until late in the year or God forbid we switch to a Fall/Spring Calendar, and that's not to mention the potential snow load that could be sitting on it for weeks at a time. Some of that weight could potentially be mitigated with a synthetic turf field, but it would still need the drainage system and the strength to hold up the water as it percs and the snow until it melts and percs. The synthetic field drainage media (soil replacement) would be light and slightly less thick, but would still be substantial. The structural members to support that kind of loading will have to be massive. New foundations for that structure will have to be excavated and constructed below the current "floor" of the stadium in order to build that and would likely necessitate removing some or all of the lower bowl seating areas to support what's being built above. Demolition is cheap, but selective demolition where you remove only what isn't holding up the upper decks isn't. And you won't be able to support this playing field + any stands above from the existing structure because it was never designed to hold that weight. Nor was I for anything other than comparison's sake for the size, weight and scale of what has to be supported. They could to some degree, but much of the two lower spaces would need to be built at the same time since it would be far more cost/time efficient to construct it as the field structure is going up around it. Further, with the air supported roof coming off, you have the upper decks being exposed to weather. These parts of the structure were never constructed to be exposed to weather, including draining rainfall, holding snow load and will create a primary pathway for water to infiltrate to the areas below the playing surface and have to be mitigated to keep it out of the lower arenas and away from structural foundations. There are very few positives, which is why very few Owners do it. It makes much more fiscal sense to build the building or share the construction cost with a municipal authority having actual deed ownership so that you avoid property taxes and lease the facility from the authority while your lease pays for retirement of the non-owner construction costs and the operations and maintenance of the facility. In the scheme of modern construction costs, that very little money. Most likely money spent to get the M/E/P systems back to base functional levels. Don! We got another letter from Astrophysicist. Give it to the intern, Ramona. And you're responsible for all property taxes on the existing + the hundreds of millions in improvements that you're planning on. Oh and yes the "government bureaucracy" will be "in the way" in the form of the making sure that the new facility in built in compliance with all modern building/operations/life safety/accessibility codes. Most of which will highly limit what they are able to do (specifically below the stadium surface) without tremendously expensive construction. You forgot "youth soccer hotbed". It's what every other market says they are too. Paying attention and seriously considering are two different things.
The answer here is simple... location, location, location. Everything in NY is more expensive. This sounds a lot like a big flat roof with a field on top to me. This sounds reasonable Very few owners own their stadium outright with no debt attached. This doesn't erase the fact that they have held numerous events and they have had 30,000 people show up for a soccer match. They could play in this stadium next year. This is not the same as building a stadium from the ground up. There are way more decisions to be made when building from scratch. You seem knowledgeable about building stuff, you should understand this. We are this too, I can't argue with that. yep.
Don't confuse franchise operating rights with real property. They are very different. The NFL didn't offer cut rate expansion fees to anyone, regardless of market. There is no such thing as a flat roof, unless you actually want it to collapse. It has to drain water. This will have to have a massive and near, if not 100% capture drainage system to keep that water off of the expensive construction you're building below it. Further, when you are constructing such a massive and heavy element in the field surface, the structural elements will be massive, reducing the available height for your structures below, forcing you to excavate ($$$$$$) and perform selective demolition ($$$$$$$) to remove more and more of the lower bowl structure to increase your available volume to get those very speculative spaces in the performance/sports spaces shoehorned in there, all while having to ensure that you're not removing something required for the upper decks. All that expensive selective demo and excavation has to be done concurrent with your construction of the field structure, so your front end cost continues to rise. Very few actually own their stadiums for several reasons. Their ability to depreciate the asset drops rapidly while their property taxes will continually increase over the life of the property. And apparently they're involved in a lawsuit over that match. The other events are largely irrelevant. They don't generate sustainable revenue to operate the facility, nor the revenue to fund the eventual improvements. Totally and wholly false. Particularly with building of this age and scale, not to mention the fact that you're going to have to remove so much of it accommodate space below and the supporting structure for the field. When you're working with an existing structure, both design and construction costs escalate, depending on the scope, but from the A&E side, the design costs typically double because of the need for so much research & investigation into the existing building. If you have plans available, and that's a big if, they won't be in electronic format, so they will have to be drafted into a usable format and the A/E team will have to actually go in and verify if things were actually built as designed. This takes time and money, lots of it. That's what Architect's get paid for. Clearly you're don't. If there were so much less decisions and work, the fees would reflect that. They don't. They reflect the exact opposite. Even in simple renovations (unlike this, where you build a new building inside an old one) fees usually double because of decisions that have to be made with regard to making existing spaces comply with new codes or to shoehorn new into old. That doesn't even consider the additional cost the contractor will charge due to the difficulty of the work and the risk. And it means nothing with regard to predicting attendance.
MR. Warmth! You are creating a valid point in making Detroit and Chicago a true rivalry with all your positive (not), untrue, only speculative comments! Your a loser who probably never gets laid so I will chalk it up to just that !! If you like when your in Detroit to watch Detroit beat any of your Chicago's teams baseball, football, hockey or whatever I will try to hook you up with someone to get you laid!!
You're (that's the proper contraction of "You are" not Your) not very good at this. I'm not sure comments can be positive and untrue, not to mention speculative at the same time. I'll just chalk it up to you being a high school drop out My wife snickered at this. Well, I don't live in Chicago and I can't really say that I'm a Bears fan, and don't care about the NBA/NHL/MLB so don't expect to find me there, even though I hear it's not as much of shit hole as the last time I was there. But hey, I'm sure your Mom appreciates you getting "dates" for her. If this is as hard as you can bring it, I'd sit the rest of this out if I were you.
Game on, then. Irrelevant to the discussion. This isn't about the viability of your market or intercity rivalry, it's about the feasibility of the stadium design that the owners are claiming they will be building, including the cost of the stadium construction, long term operational costs of a facility that they "own" versus lease and the actual liquidity of the Owner.
Fair point. Although as far as I know, there hasn't been anyone who has paid the $100 million expansion fee yet. So the going rate is still $30 - $40 mil. You my be an architect, but you are wrong here. This would be a roof under the definition of a roof. And lots of flat roofs have gutters (drainage systems), this isn't a modern invention. "roof /ruf, rʊf/ Show Spelled [roof, roof] Show IPA noun, plural roofs, ver noun 1. the external upper covering of a house or other building." Again, Sounds like a big expensive flat roof with a drainage system. Fair point, but this guy bought it for $500+ K. And the government bureaucracy wont get in the way of building a new stadium from scratch. Because this one is built already. This concerns me too. It doesn't paint this guy in a positive light. I don't totally agree with this statement. I am fairly sure there are many stadium plans that don't ever get built because local government gets in the way. After a quick search... here is an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/nyregion/06cnd-stadium.html What's your expertise? Do you do stadium architecture? I think you meant 'you'. You're the resident Big Soccer architectural engineer stadium expert . You would know best. Oh, and I am the new president of FIFA . No comment. You are correct, but recent attendance levels for the handful of recent soccer matches where on par with other similar events in other cities. And when the Detroit Express played back in the day, Detroit was smack in the middle of the pack for attendance. Besides, I don't know if this guy will ever pull this off, and even if he gets a MLS team this plan might never happen. But he is regularly getting press, and hopefully growing interest from the potential fans and the MLS execs. Essentially we are in a waiting game to see what happens in NY.
That doesn't follow. Assuming there's a serious gulf between what MLS wants to charge and an investor wants to pay (and that's already a non-trivial assumptions) there are four logical end-games: 1) Investor basically caves and pays league's price 2) MLS basically caves and offers investor's price 3) They meet somewhere in the middle, substantially different from both offers 4) They don't resolve their differences, and no transaction occurs. Point being, 3 and 4 are the dominant possibilities here. Personally, I'd suggest 4 is the plurality outcome. MLS does not need expansion franchises at this point, and I don't see anyone getting in for the last guy's price unless they bring something special to the table (such as 15,000 season ticket holders ready to go and the nicest facility in the league). For <insert expansion team here>, I put the chances of actually getting a team for $40 million at higher than zero, but not much higher.
So if number 4 happens to NY, than new negotiations could start over from scratch with a new expansion team in a new city. If this happens it's anybodies guess how much the fee would be. Although, like you stated it would most likely be more then the last guy. Which was $40 million. I was wrong on the $30-40 mill, with new negotiations it could be anywhere from $50 - $100 million. You are correct about MLS not needing any expansion at this point, but eventually MLS will want to grow and the obvious way to grow is through expansion.
Can you or anyone else point me in the direction of some info on this? It's the first I've heard of it. Now, regarding NYC, I'm still not convinced that MLS will get anywhere near $100 million as a franchise fee, from them or anyone else, any time soon. Garber floated it out there, and Stan pretty much nailed the possible scenarios, except for one: That there are two different groups bidding on the franchise, which is what I think is the case. Here's what I believe is happening behind the scenes in the whole NYC drama: The Cosmos people and the Wilpons are not as happy with going in together as the NYC slappies seem to want to think. Wilpon holds the trump card of the land on which to build, but have a potentially serious cash-flow problem. The Cosmos have their grossly inflated sense of the importance of the name and its history, and claim to have enough money, and have a keen desire to be involved in MLS (since, without it, they would become almost wholly irrelevant). So here comes Garber, floating the $100 mill figure in the press, hoping that both of them read it and conclude that, in order to get in, they have to pool their resources. When they do, the real negotiation will begin, and probably end in the $50-60 mill range. MLS wants NYC so badly that, with the combined ownership group in place, they won't feel the need to jack up the fee much. I also think that, if NYC finally happens, Detroit would have to be paired with another market (or at least have another strong bid in the wings) for MLS to let them in. I doubt that they will want to have a league with an odd number of teams again. Montreal was an exception, because NYC was right over the horizon (another, possibly even the main reason why MLS is so hot for them). If NYC falls through completely, I think that Triple Sports is on MLS's speed dial, Detroit gets in for $50 mill, and Mr. Warmth can take up his objections with Rossetti.
Here is some of that article the rest can be found here http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/48820--i-this-i-guy-bought-the-silverdome "These perceptions might be incorrect. Apostolopoulos’s events company, Triple Sports and Entertainment, organized an exhibition game in August 2010 between Italy’s AC Milan and Greek club Panathinaikos that drew a crowd of 30,000. (Apostolopoulos worked in his office through most of it.) This past June, 25,000 people also attended Ford Field in Detroit to watch a Gold Cup match between the U.S. and Canada. MLS is intrigued but not swayed. “Those events do provide a gauge, but those are one-off events, and they’re not necessarily a true indicator,” says Dan Courtemanche, senior vice-president of marketing and communications. Despite the turnout for the exhibition game last August, Apostolopoulos’s entry into the world of professional soccer has not been smooth. Earlier this year, a subsidiary of the Creative Artists Agency, one of North America’s largest talent and sports agencies, sued Triple Sports and Entertainment. CAA represents both AC Milan and Panathinaikos, and Apostolopoulos was supposed to pay the agency US$1.75 million for securing the teams’ participation. According to CAA’s court filing, he’s holding out on US$258,665.34. Triple Sports filed its own action against CAA claiming that it failed to adequately promote the event. The company had to pester CAA to get the teams to update their websites and confirm the event was taking place. CAA was also supposed to make star players, such as Ronaldinho, available for media interviews. But Ronaldinho suffered an injury and didn’t travel to Pontiac. Other star Milan players didn’t come either, and no one was available for interviews. As a result, Triple Sports lost out on refreshments, merchandise and ticket sales to the tune of more than US$1.7 million. The impression one gets from the claims, if true, is that no one aside from Triple Sports had much interest in soccer in Pontiac. " The way this reads to me is that CAA and the teams didn't bring the players they promised so thats probably why triple sports didn't pay the full amount. I mean if they paid all of 1.5 mill then why did they hold back the rest I am sure that Triple sports knows how these things work and felt that they were within there rights. Triple is also suing for damages so I really think there is more to this story! And if they didn't pay then why did they come ? I am sure if CAA felt there were not comfortable or felt they were not going to get paid from Triple sports they would not have had them play the game. Alot of hogwash !! Mr. warmth is an idiot so I am not responding to HIS BS anymore Triple sports is probably already talking to Rossetti!!
Call back if and when someone gets a cut rate from the last investor. The rate never goes down. Actually what you have is a very expansive and expensive "roof garden", that is if they continue to move forward with a natural turf field. Your roof, which is a thermal and moisture barrier will be below that. There is no such thing as a flat roof. There are low slope roofs with slopes of 1/12 & 2/12 pitches, but with anything less than that, gravity will not drain water either fast enough or over slope variations across a roof membrane/surface which will cause ponding, followed by leaks & roof system failure. That puts water down on top of your very nicely finished spaces below like the performance/convention spaces which will require costly/time consuming repairs and limit your ability to hold events in those spaces. Further, few people are going to want to lease your space if there is a chance of water draining on their head. If the water continues to pond and/or cannot get off the roof due to parapet walls and the like, the roof structure will fail and/or collapse. As for gutters, very small low slope roofs can drain using only gutters, but we're not talking about a small drainage area. We're talking something in the neighborhood of two acres and you might be mentally retarded if you think this field (or any other similarly sized area) would be drained by gutters, not to mention that either the natural turf soil or artificial surface base will absorb the majority of the water, holding it or percolating it though to a drainage system below that is going to require significant underfield storm drainage infrastructure (drainage boxes, piping, etc) that will require long term maintenance to keep it flowing and free of soil or the rubber sand infill. That's a 2+ acre drainage area that you almost have to consider 100% catchment for. Also, good luck getting a warranty for whatever roof you put under this. Luckily you won't have a wind uplift issue to worry about, but you won't get a weather tightness warranty for it. Also, good luck tracking down the eventual leaks in the confined space between your roof garden and the actual roof. Again, there is no such thing as a "flat" roof. There are low slope roofs 1/12 through 2/12 slope, normal slope between 3/12 & 7/12 and anything above a 7.5/12 slope is considered a steep slope with the associated upcharge for construction & repair. What it is is a extremely expensive and large roof garden with an extremely complex and expansive/expensive drainage system with a very large roof below with likely hundreds of penetrations and tens of thousands of linear feet of seams that are all potential sources for leaks for any moisture that isn't collected by the drainage systems. Insurance on this roof will likely be cost prohibitive and maintenance will be a nightmare for the "owner". At some point, the cost and complexity of building such an exotic structure far outstrips the potential revenue that either the soccer stadium or all three structures can reasonably produce to either justify the investment of the Owner's resources or to pay back any sort of financing over the standard 10 year to extended 20 year repayment period. So are you saying that the City of Pontiac isn't going to make the Owner comply with the codes that they make every other building owner comply with when they renovate or refurbish a structure? Because the City will find itself being sued to the point of oblivion for enforcing a separate set of conditions on those owners that drove their costs up. Not to mention the state and federal regulations that will kick in, that the City of Pontiac has no ability to waive for Mr. Astroglide. There is another suit involving a large musical performance where there was a staging accident and the producer backed out, not to mention there were user complaints about the cold conditions in some of the events. Seems they don't have the HVAC issues corrected. Try searching some more, a decision declining to provide funding/financing for a new stadium is an apples to waffle irons comparison with the ability and/or likelihood of an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) being able to or wanting to wave compliance with locally adopted codes, let alone state/federal codes. And if you think the Michigan State Fire Marshall is going waive their public safety requirements for these types of assembly structures, that only tells me you spent some time huffing paint when you typed this. No, but I reviewed plenty of it for code compliance in a previous job. My expertise comes from working both sides of the design/construction fence as it relates to public finance, building and development codes, land use planning and zoning, public infrastructure and now designing to local/state/federal codes and ensuring all land use and public authority issues are solved and then monitoring construction through closeout. My current office works exclusively for tribal governments for a variety of non-casino work. large and small schools and early childhood education facilities, campus masterplanning & development, now moving into health care/elder care and land planning for development. I only put that in to show my humility. I can't be perfect all the time. Why not? This isn't going to be done by a bunch of local schmoes. Soccer "Event" attendances are terrible predictors for week in/week out league soccer and if NASL historical attendances were good predictors, the CFKAMetrostars would have been averaging 40K since 1996. If he does, I'll gladly come here and admit I was wrong. I feel safe that I'll never have to do that I doubt I'll have to take anything up with Rossetti or anyone else since the scope of this project is pushing the need for Gulf Emirate scales of financing. And I was so hoping to get some details on your Mom. How old is she? Is she a redhead? I like redheads. I like them with curves too, none of this boney skinny shit. They're making a killing on conceptual design. Renderings won't get you a building permit or construction financing.