Personally, I don't think it will hurt or help. You could say that sharing a stadium with a baseball team would be worse than with a football team, but the "baseball team formerly known as the Expos" would only be there until they could get their own stadium. Plus, if United is after the same thing (their own stadium), they might be out of there before the baseball team is. Both teams are/would be paying rent to the city, so either could get sweetheart deals, or both could get screwed. This may sound like a bad idea, but if worse came to worse, United could share with the 'Skins (if they'd let 'em). I guess we'll just have to cross that bridge when we get there.
The Skins own their stadium. I don't think they'd let them play there. That's why their value is damn high. The same reason why Dallas is second, and a team like Chicago is in the middle of the pack. Um, when was the last time baseball was played at RFK? 1971????
Dan Syder, the Skin's owner would LOVE to have DC United (and the Washington Freedom) play there. He pops up as a option every year when DCU and the DC Sports Commission do their dance. Synder is on record saying he would want to have DCU relocate there. Granted, that was from 2 years ago or so. And that DCU would have all the problems the Metros do about playing for an NFL stadium. Incidentally, that field is built to FIFA specs and was used during the WWC. Bobby Goldwater, head of the DCSC, has said, but not on the record, the ball is in AEG's court at this moment when it comes to building the stadium. The new stadium will be a partnership between AEG and the DCSC, if it ever happens. Sachin
My recollection from the WWC was that the field left absolutely no room for corner kicks when they stretched it to 70 yards. It's another example of a new NFL stadium that could have had soccer potential with a tiny bit of planning (like CMGI and Invesco), but is simply a wee bit too narrow.