Stadium News & Spectulation: "We're gonna need a bigger thread"

Good gossip should be drawn out - and it's not like we won't have 60-90 days of quiet time to hear it leaked out tiny bit by tiny bit

But you may be right, I may have only skimmed over the "stop it" posts and not got their true leanings correct Carry on.

 

Never doubt the ability of people to live in a bubble and assume that others want what they want.

 

Jesus, reading BeardyBlue's posts anywhere makes me want to vomit Dude is clueless. "Why I still have faith in the owners" - an analysis that completely ignores that circumstances change. Acquiring another soccer team often means that you no longer need to have an MLS club to satisfy your itch for sports franchise ownership. Dealing with the DC City Council for a year is enough to illuminate the most so-called educated person on the difficulties of developing a major project in he district. But hey, have faith, because something something words.

 

Emos gonna emo.

 

The "stadium first" and not "stadium in conjunction with" point of view makes a great deal of business sense. I share the view that we can trust the owners to eventually put DC on solid financial footing and invest in DC as a product on and off the field IF a stadium deal can be reached. The corollary is that if they can't get a stadium deal, then DC United is dead weight, and not a wise place to invest additional funds. That also comports with what we're seeing. Without a stadium deal, there's very little financial certainty or security. In that sense, I don't trust the owners. They aren't philanthropic proponents of soccer in this region or country, they're businessmen first and foremost. It would have been easier for everyone if they had been fan-investors. They believe in DC United with a stadium, but not without one.

If these guys get a stadium deal done, I think we'll see a great many improvements fall on the heels of that announcement. Trust is really a moo point.

It's moo.

 

Or, conversely, you could be clueless (not that I have the faintest clue what post you're talking about)

And if I read this correctly you are saying that the 76ers and Grizzlies are deemed unimportant because those two guys also bought United?

I get that somehow you have to be miserable to get through each day, but damn dude, does spreading it have to be part of your every post?

 

Apparently yes, it does.

 

I believe Shamalamadingdong is referring to this article, written by a friend and a recognizable personality in SE.

 

No. I think you're hitting the nail on the head though that no one has a clue really and that anyone who says "there is no logic to the argument that" (1) the owners are not acting as motivated actors to get DC United a stadium and top flight talent or (2) there are indications that the owners are working hard to get the stadium deal going and top flight talent will follow, are suspect.

I'm so unsure, I can imagine a situation where the owners are in talks to pawn off United or move them even now OR a situation where shady backroom deals are about to get us the nicest stadium we could imagine in the perfect location with public transport.

Quite honestly, I think the stadium first arguments have leverage, but this team is losing credibility, if it had any at all. Even Goff is happy to find anything to do other than report on DC United news and updates. The USMNT success is, to him, like being released from a prison labor camp.

Reading blog posts that assert a stadium is the only (or primary) way to revive the club are silly. Actually, just the ones that serve as excuses for inaction on the part of the owners or FO. Particularly grating are when they highlight the attendance last season without mentioning the lagged effect of being losers the previous few years or our horrendous schedule (much improved this year) [they do this to emphasize that winning or quality players don't pack the seats or generate interest, or advertising, which is simply wrong]. They fail to mention the time to construction from planning (~3 years?). That a stadium could put us in continued limbo if the failure to correctly field a team continues. They highlight the nonstories in the news we've seen for years about a city council member supporting a project (what does support even mean?) as evidence of continued talks. They ignore the reality that if your primary financial backer spends between 250-320 million dollars on a club somewhere else, that your chances at a stadium can be perceived as diminished or increased. Perhaps it signals an increased seriousness in owning a sports franchise and sending players down to MLS teams from Italy. Maybe it means that the stadium negotiations are so awful, that he took his pot of cash slated for a DC stadium and shipped it to Milan.

Importantly, it ignores the reality that this team spends roughly 3.6 million on players a year. With better spending choices and an additional 500k spent on salary (not asking for much), we have a cup team or at least a team of a higher quality than we have seen in years. I continually hear people suggest that if you want more money spent on players, then you're asking for Ronaldo or Kaka. No, you're not.

The stadium first (or stadium excuse) arguments create a false dichotomy- that you either support a stadium and financial stability, or you want LA/NY style salaries. Nothing else matters- from spending on marketing properly, to generating interest vis a vis a good television deal and on. The reality is there is a middle ground but, unfortunately, it's clouded by uncertainty.

 

Oh brother... awful, awful, awful, awful. Its not that choice at all.

 

All these posts and nothing... Nothing, of substance on the stadium. <sigh> God knows how many worthless clicks I've provided this thread.

 

If you want something of substance (not stadium related), the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a boy!

 

Ah, but the question is would that boy eventually build DC United a stadium?

 

Damn it! Not here too ...

 

So this is my hope!?!? (at least he should be able to get into any college he wants) After reading Goff's depressing piece on Olsen's longevity. He could also have written a piece on how long this stadium has been in the works.

 

You don't want a royal to build us a stadium, because it would end up bearing a name like "The Arthur William George James Henry Windsor Football Ground."

 

LOL - If one is built, would the name matter?

 

FYI the baby was 8 pounds, 6 ounces. Which is coincidentally the same amount of shit that I just couldn't give about it.

 

I don't believe in coincidences, but I admit the lines of causality are blurry.

 

Bribes.

I'm not sure of the mechanics exactly, but it's FIFA, so it is a safe bet they'll be involved in making it possible.

 

it's not named Bono is it?

South Park. Holla!

 

Press conference, 11am tomorrow. This guy thinks it's about your stadium:

https://twitter.com/washbizneibs/status/360151350174162945

(To clarify, I'm a nobody, but this guy is a reporter for the Washington Business Journal. Check other tweets in his timeline for more info.)

 

This is why I hate Twitter, the CB radio of the 2010s. Somebody I've never heard of makes a guess about something and I'm supposed to believe he's not just doing it for attention? Not a chance.

I'll get my hopes up when I see a kickoff.

 

https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/status/360163376342638592

NBC Thinks its the stadium too..

 

Just because you don't know him doesn't mean he's not a real reporter.

Granted, this is reporters speculating, but they're working on confirmations:

https://twitter.com/tomsherwood/status/360163434299535361