All right. We're all excited about the new Home Depot Training Center coming next year. But what team should get a staduim next. NY, Dallas, Chicago? Or one of the "promised" expansion teams? What team is most deserving and/or who would get the best deal? Add your .02 folks
Probaly. That sucks a little, but I'll be happy just to see more soccer stadiums period. I can't complain.
Well getting the Metros a stadium would definitely benefit MLS the most, but it's a very difficult thing to do. Location is so crucial, particularly location along public transportation. But, with Bradley at the helm the Metros should put on a successful and aestetically pleasing product and I'm sure that'll attract some following. I'm eager to see whether he works to attract some of the stronger international crowds in the area with his SI selections. I think the Polish community in New Jersey is very substantial, and in Queens and Brooklyn as well, and Bradley has a strong history and reputation in that community, so that's one possibility. That would help fill a stadium. After the Metros I have no idea where the stadium focus will move. DC United is rumored to be losing money, but I don't think their stadium situation is that bad really, and I don't see a new stadium performing miracles for their revenue stream if they build on DC Stadium Authority property. The Fire definitely are ripe for a stadium, but the politics seem to be a very difficult obstacle. Despite KC moving ahead looking to build a stadium, I don't see that as an imperative move either. Dallas, on the other hand, looks promising and seems very very needed, so I'd expect them to be taken care of at close to the same time frame as the Metros. San Jose needs a solution, but I don't know if a new stadium is it. The SJ/SF/OAK metro area is simply too big and media-important to give up on, but all of their sports are struggling right now. I'd expect all of the expansion teams to have good revenue streams from their stadium leases or have ownership rights of the stadium itself. Either way that's a benefit to the league. -Tron
I think the most deserving teams are the ones with the largest attendences. A good fan base is obviously important when considering expansion. We need people that are going to come out to the games. Also, a good location to expand with community support.
I think NY, DC and Dallas need new SSS cause of the rent they pay is too high. It would help the league if they got a home first. It sounds like NE,KC, Chicago and colorado have ok deals with the NFL stadiums thy play in. And SJ I don't know but I have not read bad about their rent.
Well, the Metrostars stadium (according to the latest on the metrostars' board) is up for a vote in the NJ senate in two weeks or so. Obie has the most info on that. Cross your fingers. that's the biggest step. Dallas seems more and more likely to get a stadium in Frisco, a northern suburb of Dallas. According to http://www.ussocceruk.com Lamar Hunt will finally close on the Burn in March after the stadium deal happens. That right there would give us 4 SSS, and two more (NE and KC) that are highly favorable financial deals for us, save for the too-large seating capacity in Arrowhead. Actually, according to some, the Rapids made money this year with their improved lease. Chicago looks to have a similiar deal in SF in place when they move back next year. So, if Dallas and Met stadiums get built, that really only leaves us with 2 horrible situations: SJ and DC. We can assume any expansion team will either have a SSS or a pretty sweet deal on another stadium.
DC? Horrible? I would think not. Unless you're talking about security guards, thats a whole 'nuther story.
Actually of all of the "bad" revenue stadiums in MLS, DC United's RFK Stadium is probably the best because of its other things. United is the sole tenant (well, along with the WUSA Washington Freedom). The stadium is extremely well located as it's in the city and has it's own Metro (subway) stop. There literally is not a single bad seat in the entire house, as all seats have great sight lines (far better than most NFL stadiums). The seats are comfortable, and the supporters section safely bounces in a way that looks awesome both in person and on TV. The supporters section is packed with standing fanatics every game, so this really creates a phenomenal atmosphere. Attendance regularly fills about 2/3 to 3/4 of the lower bowl so it looks and feels more full than it is. The concessions and rest room situation isn't the best, but it's far from the worst. Literally, the only major negatives about RFK are that it's too big (~55k with ~30k in the lower bowl) and that DC United doesn't get parking, concessions, skybox or other ancilliary revenues. Unfortunately, all SSS discussions in DC must go through the DC Stadium Authority ("DCSA"). Because soccer (DCU and Washington Freedom) is RFK's only tennant, they're not ecstatic about losing them (unless of course they could get a basebal team). So, DCSA isn't offering a much better revenue scheme for any stadium that would be built within DC. That means any new construction obtaining a good revenue scheme would have to be either in a VA or MD suburb. The Northern Virginia ("NoVa") area grew up almost overnight, and the transportation gridlock is absolutely atrocious. The chance of a metro is almost nil, and the road system is woefully inadequate. MD simply doesn't have any room. They also have issues, not the least of which is that there is no political or investor support for funding a stadium or team. Sooooooooooooo, while DC United's lease at RFK is relatively expensive, and being shut out from the parking and concessions revenues is a major problem, I don't see DC being anywhere except towards the bottom of the AEG stadium pecking order. The fans love RFK because of the convenience, sight lines, bouncy stands, comfort, and intimate lower bowl. The games are historically well attended, and the larger capacity allows for frequent friendlies. While I would say that a DC United SSS is on AEG's agenda, I wouldn't say that it would be anything but a low/last priority item. At least that's my take on it. -Tron
Tron, I totally agree with you, I am a huge DCU supporter living in Wisconsin and although I have yet to get to see a United home game there is nothing that warms my heart more than seeing the bouncing masses at the stadium. I mean, it just makes the game alot more fun, and it's really the only time besides a Chicago Fire game that you can actually know that there is a good fan presence at the game. I don't think DCU is at the top of the list. It would be a complete shame if the intamacy and bouncing masses would be lost. If they do get a new stadium built I would hope that they don't lose the intimacy and for god's sake, please keep the bouncing stands!!!
If we get an SSS you can forget about any bouncing stands. Too many saftey hazards for the club to bother with. Bummer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: After the Galaxy.... Chicago Fire Naperville Cardinal Stadium SECTION 8 (AKA BarnBurners)
The Metros' demand should be taken care of first, followed by that of the Burn. After that, there has to be a total shift in attitudes among the politicians in Chicagoland and the Firehouse can be finally built.
Looking at it from an economic prospective, I think you are dead on with the Metroscum and Burn needing it the most, of course I'm partial to DCU getting the next stadium, however I won't lie because I think the BarnBurners are just amazing and deserving alone of the Firehouse. I could just imagine the atmosphere at a decent sized stadium!!! Just like with DCU.
" Actually of all of the "bad" revenue stadiums in MLS, DC United's RFK Stadium is probably the best because of its other things. " Uh.. you seem to not understand how much money DC loses on that shthole
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: After the Galaxy.... They move uncomfortably. RFK's stands have intentional give...i'm not aware that the temporary stands in naperville are supposed to give the same.