Read this in the Times this morning at the airport. It's mostly about the Women's World Cup but it also talks about a SSS. Nothing earth-shattering but it does have 'da mayor on record saying he wants a Home Depot-esque place in the city. http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20030616-111839-3071r.htm
When it comes to the DC Government I will quote the famous popeye the sailor man- "I believes it when I sees it." The Far Side
What a load of crap. Williams is just looking for something to make DC look like a "world-class" city; he doens't give a damn for soccer. But hey, if we get a nice new stadium within the city, whatever.
What is seems like is that AEG realizes the money to be made by owning smaller venue soccer stadiums on two sides; benefits their MLS teams and the entertainment side of hosting concerts, etc. Now that LA is open, a huge success and making money, the ball will be rolling in the other AEG markets, I'd suspect more then one at a time. It will become a matter of finding the right ground in each city.
*sigh* I don't know. One would think that the "brains" in charge of the stadium authority would realize that when a commissioner of a league is still non-committal as to whether to move a sports franchise into the city that they should look into other options, for the very reason to show that they're willing to look at other options and not be made...ah, I guess that's been covered before. So, is the plan still to build the SSS at Lot 8?
Something has to be done soon. Maybe it's the constant rain this Spring, but RFK looks like more of a dump than usual this year, and I'm not just talking about the field. The front entrance is starting to look like the ancient ruins of a once-great Roman stadium, complete with weed-choked monuments to past glories and long-gone heroes. DC won't put any more money than absolutely necessary to repair RFK, and they're still waiting for baseball to come back to DC, like some jilted middle-aged fatso still waiting for her prom date to show up. Time to strike out on our own.
So much for the grand plan to return MLB to D.C. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37402-2003Jun26.html I say that since they were willing to offer X amount to attract MLB, a precident has been set. Why not take just a small fraction of that and put it towards building a SSS. Now that's an idea worth considering.
Actually, its the number of games that makes Baseball so attractive. 180 games a year is simply unparalleled in American sports. That's 90 revenue opportunities at home games alone. Concessions x 90, Parking x 90, and the players make tons of money so some (the players living in DC) of their taxes are also revenues. If they make the playoffs, that could be 10 or so more opportunities. MLS teams have a 32 game season. That's 16 opportunities for revenue, a far cry from 90. And, while an MLS team is far more likely to make the playoffs (theoretically ... don't laugh), that is likely to be less than 5 games depending upon format and performance. Even when you include National team games and international games, it would be rare to break 40 opportunities. The silver lining is the WUSA, as they would bring another 15 to 20 opportunities, bringing us to a grand total of 60 in a best case scenario. Still, it's likely to be about half of what Baseball will bring. Plus, the marketing opportunities provided by the extreme TV coverage baseball receives, the local merchants might prefer baseball. But all of this is folly anyway. MLS is a paying tennant, and until it's clear that they're moving away, there's no reason for the District of Columbia to throw money at MLS. Plus, DC's politics are overwhelmingly run by the core Democratic residents of DC. Few of those attend DC United games, and fewer would approve of spending millions on a soccer stadium. So, even if it did make financial sense, it might be political suicide in DC. MLS' best bet would be to get a committment from NoVa or SoMd to build a stadium. Then, when faced with the almost certainty of losing the revenues supporting RFK, the powers that be in DC might see fit to help build a new stadium. I just don't see it happening before that committment from outside DC though. -Digital
I don't see what the party affiliation of DC residents has to do with this issue. There are examples of cities with "core Democratic residents" such as Detroit, which voted in a referrendum to build a stadium rather than improve schools or infrastructure. Unless you've seen demographic and party affiliation information, which I doubt anyone has, you are making wild claims which have no basis in fact. That said, I doubt the DC government could get any measure supporting funding of a stadium through congress at this time. Given the District has stated they need additional funds to remain solvent, I can't see the Feds saying "Ok, we'll give you funds because you are not a State but have the burden of the Federal Government and no we don't mind if you blow the money on a stadium instead of infrastructure and services." Sorry, but I can't see a bunch of fiscal conservatives agreeing to that logic.
(Gasp!) Are you telling me someone posted information on BS with no basis in fact? in which opinion was substituted for actual knowledge? No, I am sorry, Rev, I refuse to believe it.