It's "soccer specific" by default; that is, there are no other sports teams playing there. The problem is that the DC Stadium Authority takes almost every dime from concessions and parking, and a large share of the ticket revenue. That, and the stadium holds 55K while DCU averages about 16-17K per match. We're basically paying for 40K empty seats. The place is also falling apart. There haven't been any large chunks of concrete falling from the upper deck recently, but I think that's probably because Barry slapped a new coat of paint on the place about three years ago, which is holding the crumbling concrete in place. I considered buying season tickets in the mezzanine this year, but one look at the ratty carpet and ancient chairs convinced me to stay in 206.
Don't mean to offend Knave, but you are quite a bit of distance from our beloved RFK... Any new stadium in DC would not have improved concessions or other "money makers" that you talk about because the stadium would be built under the auspices of the Stadium Authority and they are not about to give up their revenue stream... Nor are they likely to staff the place with people not currently employed at the concession stands... While the Tool House may be a wonderful venue, I've been to a few "real soccer stadiums" that are much worse than RFK to watch a game. RFK was built before the era of the "giant open bowl" concept took over in the US - which gave us wonderful venues like the Swamp, Jack Kent Cook, and the old Foxborough... RFK's problem as a venue has more to do with the lack of quality staff rather than an issue with the stadium. That and the size doesn't match the attendance... BTW - While I tend to dislike the customer service from most of the staff at RFK, I specifically have to acknowledge the guy at the Foggy Bottom stand on the lower concourse is great! Not only is he friendly and efficient but he also utilizes common sense...
Hey! Don't rat the guy out. You publicize this too much, and they'll sack him and get some incompetent guy from the french fry stand to screw it all up.
No offense. I'll admit that one of the drawbacks of leaving the mid-Atlantic is that it's now rather difficult to make it to home games. That's only assuming it's built in the district (and that the financial arrangement is similar to the current one at RFK). If it's in Maryland or Virginia then DC United and MLS would benefit from the "money makers" I listed.
You're right to a point. But DC United's bargaining power at a purposely built soccer stadium goes up significantly as opposed to RFK. United can threaten to walk away and leave a open facility since they are the ONLY soccer team in town. With RFK, it's paid for, all the city needs to do is pay (some of) the upkeep and pray that a baseball team comes to town. Also, United's rent at a SSS is probably not going to be the same as at RFK. So that brings the break even ticket sales number down for the team.
The problem with RFK is a financial one. watching games there is decent ........ but it would be much better with a cozy stadium to play in. However, as I said, there is the money issue. as the league is single entity, and still in its early stages, every dollar counts in making sure that this league is around and thriving 10 years from now. regardless of the DC stadium authority, or whatever the hell they call themselves, ANY deal we get on a new stadium would be better than what we have at RFK presently, so we need to fight for that change. as i said in another post though, a lot of this delay has to do with the courting of baseball in DC. since we have apparently been snubbed in our efforts there again, this may be a good thing for soccer here
1) The fact that we need a better deal with the stadium authority is such a given/tired subject I'm sad to see people even have to bring it up. 2) RFK is a great stadium with lots of amazing SOCCER tradition... Including DCU tradition, Men's and Women's tradtion... Hell Dips tradition, too. And, as a fan, I'm fine attending games. Sometimes we on this board (superfans, internet nutjobs) blur the line (in our sad little worlds) between enjoying the game and fantasizing about actually being the GM/Pres. of Operations. Not a dig at anyone, I have to step back and remind myself all the time. 3) Chicago. Look what they did with on open RFP process: Got them 4 (apparently) viable options going into the final round. One decent one (apparently) from the City, and 3 from various 'burbs. It can be done, people. Not every last inch of real estate in this region has a NIMBY sign on it. Not every last community is going to ignore a chance to bring in millions in residuals. The idea that "nothing will happen" until beisbol is done dicking around with our fair city is defeatist and self-limiting. Say what you want about Payne and AEG, but I don't think they'd fall victim to that type of attitude. 4) Also, one final note: The fact that HDC, Columbus, NJ, Frisco, Chicago and Denver are established/moving forward can ONLY HELP. It's all about showing precedent, about showing permanence of the sport, about showing what is possible with a little vision. The groundwork is there, folks. There are already case studies to point to around the country. Half Full, people. (and no, I don't mean RFK.)
If DC/AEG were to build a new stadium, would the SEC still have control over some or all revenues? I mean, if the city pays for some of the stadium, then they have a right to a share of some of the revenues. However, if Uncle Phil finds a spare $50 million under his desk and builds DC a stadium, are DC laws such that any stadium, regardless of its financing, owes some share of revenues to the SEC? If so, that would be bad. Bad as in Scott Vermillion bad. Frankly, as much as AEG and Payne would love to tell AEG to f*** off, as long as DC has baseball being dangled in front of it, I don't see how SEC will be that willing to work with AEG. Using MD and VA as leverage, however, may help some in that regard.
I don't think people understand the tremendous amount of patience and effort it takes to get one of these stadiums built. Think how many government agencies have to sucked-up to, how many committee meetings have to be attended, and the zoning issues that have to be worked through. And asking people for money, especially government organizations? I doubt AEG has the manpower to do many of things at once but the fact that Denver is off their plate now can only help DC. The more SSS's are built, the more pressure on the other cities to do the same. Yeah, it's a good thing for everyone.
Right...and the DC Stadium Authority caved completely when the Redskins threatened to leave town and RFK unoccupied... AEG has consistently said they want to work through the Stadium Authority to build a stadium - a public/private deal. That means the DC Stadium Authority would have power over the revenue generation division. Sure, AEG would get some money because they kicked in to build the stadium, but don't for a minute think it will be the panacea of millions per year. The big question will be what other revenues a stadium can generate outside the 17 or so DC United home games...perhaps with a smaller capacity they can compete with the Mary Weather Post and Nissan pavilions for concerts. As for moving out of the District, that has been hashed to death around here (frankly all of this has been). We all know that the preferred location is within DC close to Metro...but as I stated before, moving outside the District just means someone else screwing DC United... Or does anyone think that Mongomery, PG, Arlington, Alexandria, or Fairfax counties are less likely to leech as much money as they can out of AEG? [sarcasm] How's the work on DC United park coming along in Louden County? I hear they are ready to begin practicing next week... [/sarcasm]
My observations in the few (13-14) years I've lived here is that at least some of these other jurisdictions understand about working effectively with private companies in such a way as to render the most good (profit, etc.) for all concerned. My impression is that the district government is either so corrupt, greedy, or stupid (or all three) that the only thing that even puts them in the running in business development with surrounding jurisdictions is that they're the nation's capitol and the others aren't. Put simply, while putting pressure on the DCSEC may not have worked for JKC, in the end who is making more money off the Redskins, Maryland or DC? These people are so incompetent they'd kill a goose that laid golden eggs in hopes they could find gold inside it. Is that really who we want AEG dealing with?
It's origins don't really interest me. The question is does it work for soccer. Not one of these things matters to me as a fan. Maybe HDC is better, but RFK is so good for viewing a game, that it can't matter that much to me. I would watch DCU play in an open field, so definitely wouldn't shun a new place. But I would be very careful that what is being offered is actually better than RFK -- with great accoustics, not football lines, adequate dimensions and great sight lines. BOTTOM LINE: Replacing RFK is not a priority for MLS or Uncle Phil, nor should it be.
Forgive me but doesn't it matter to you as a fan that DC United is on solid financial footing? Until they get their own stadium there won't even be a chance that they'll get out from under the thumb of the DCSEC. Perhaps not on the terms you're thinking. But what if I submitted that getting all the teams in the black is - and must be - a priority for MLS and Uncle Phil. I suspect we can both agree on that. If building a SSS for DC United would help to get it in the black (and I don't think it would be built if people didn't anticipate that it would) then wouldn't you have to concede that financially speaking a SSS is a priority?
There are other ways to get into the black. For example, Peter Wilt has intimated that he has been able to get a better lease offer from Soldier Field. The economics have changed with stadium authorities around the country understanding that MLS is an assett. I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of getting a better lease for RFK. I am guilty of thinking of football first and business second. As for the business aspects of it, I don't think that a new SSS is necessarily the only way to get into the black. One should never take the public claims of red ink from accountants too seriously -- you will never know from the outside what the true story is.
I actually think that Sharon Pratt Kelly (mayor)pissed off Jack Kent Cooke and he said, "see ya later, I'm building my own damn stadium."
      This is another big aspect of the expected Spartan Stadium refurbishment/reconstruction: AEG/Earthquakes taking full control of the stadium (including concessions, parking, scheduling, etc.).       The stadium is currently run by Spartan Shops, which by most accounts are very difficult to deal with. -G
The initial premise to this thread was that it was a negative thing that other teams were getting SSS. Not true. First, look at baseball. After the success of Camden Yards, other teams jumped on the bandwagon to develop "class" baseball specific stadia. When AEG owned all (well, almost) of MLS, you knew that they weren't going to build stadiums simultaneously--they could focus attention one at a time. But Chicago is going, Dallas is going. The Colorado/Denver deal--that isn't AEG. All of this development is only good for DCU. It creates a trend and puts pressure on other sources (AEG, Stadium board) and provides more examples of what works and what doesn't. Let me give you an example. The first SSS is Columbus. Its a fine park. But AEG learned from that and the Tool Shed in LA is a vast improvement. Do you know what is going to shut up Sigi and the other LA people about "if you call yourself a soccer fan, you've got to make the pilgrimage and attend a game in our stadium"? It's going to be the next SSS (which I think will be Dallas) which will probably be even better. I'm not arguing for delay here. Only that while I wish we had a SSS now, the fact that Colorado is in the line doesn't put us further behind. The biggest factor for the SSS situation in DC is the indecision around baseball. Once that is resolved, a key roadblock (not the only one, but a key one) will disappear.
I grew up in the DC area and knowing the mentality of the local politicians, there is little chance you'll see a stadium in the next 5 years. This is tragic because when it is all said and done, DC has some serious tradition with United and the Nats. However, the east coast hold on qualifiers is about to end. Oh well, just chalk this up to greed, avarice and incompetence by talented shakedown artists. You guys deserve so much more.
You're right, a deal with the Stadium Authority will not be a huge financial windfall. But right now, United get's no concession money, and I don't think they get a chunk of parking revenue either. So United generates no money other than ticket sales, in game promotions/advertisements, and souveniers on a game day. And they pay a lot of money for a 56k stadium, where they use 24k. So IF they get a new stadium, and a lower rent/usage fee their cost come down. If they even get a small cut of concessions and/or parking. That may be the difference between 15k fans a night being a break even night, or a slightly profitable night.
Actually, I think that DC United gets $1 from each $10 parking fee... still not very much, though. And they certainly see no concession money whatsoever. And a question: What is the current rent on the stadium? -$60K per game?