There's not really any permanent structures at Bonney right? Highmark Stadium cost $10 million and I'm sure a lot of that went into just the team building.
Brick-and-mortar stadiums cost more... old MLS trivia-- Sacramento got 3,500 season ticket deposits in 1994 for the original MLS (compared to Tampa with over 5k, Seattle with around 1,700 and Tulsa with 2.300)... ONEOk Park was budgeted at $6mil for 7,800 in fixed seating but cost $40 mil with $20mil bundled in to stimulate downtown development... the second part is a conspicuously missing component in Bridgeview, IL. I think this is one reason why Tulsa's tax extension will include an 8k stadium that will cost the same $50-$60 mil so that a portion is reserved for those lucrative "public/private partnerships" to continue to stimulate building other stuff downtown... As a point of reference, I believe Taft cost $10 mil to rebuild (not sure how much was spent on demolition)... and Speegle was budgeted at around $8 mil...
And yet somehow they made it work. And people pack the place out. They even increased capacity this year. And BTW, this is barely less finished than Taft Stadium STILL is this far into the season. (OK, that's a BIT of an exaggeration) ;-)
Guess I don't see an appreciable distinction? So, lights, field, stands, etc... Not a stadium? What exactly would make it "a stadium"? And the fact that it's "temporary" hasn't stopped Sac Rep from filling to a new capacity for every game. Plus, they have hosted US Rugby there for games. I don't see why you can't call it a stadium? People there seem to love going to a "temporary" stadium in much larger numbers than seem to be headed to Taft Stadium, a proper stadium. Just sayin'
I'm not criticizing Sacramento's stadium, just attempting to show what it is. And that was part of answering your question about why their plan will cost Tulsa $50-60 million when Sacramento only spent $3 million.
Is it just me? Or does Sac's way seem to make a ton of sense for minor league soccer? Spend THREE million and see if it's gonna work, before putting taxpayers on the hook for $50-60 million? I think it makes a great deal of financial sense to do it that way. maybe I'm the only one who thinks so.
I completely agree, but some others think that in some places, the ammenities of such a stadium are a big deal and possibly if Sacramento wouldn't be so far into the MLS push with a new "perminant" stadium seemingly around the corner that people would stop coming to that "temperary" stadium. I think most markets should test the market with something like this (at the owners cost). Heck, this should have been done in Detroit, Arizona, and possibly Louisville. Instead of playing in high school stadiums/baseball stadiums. The problem is the land has to be available. To me, it's a great way to test the market at a "lower" cost but still have it in a "soccer specific" type of place that can sell beer!
As stated below ... it's likely the 50-60 isn't soley for the soccer stadium, but for development of the area around it.
What if, going forward, especially if they want to be Div II, USL REQUIRED new teams who are in this new division to play in a SSS, whether it be temporary, or not? No more high school football stadiums, or minor league baseball stadiums? Using Sac Rep as a guide, we know a decent stadium could be build for $3-5 million. This could be a litmus test, of sorts, to see exactly how well-funded these new teams are? No one gets thrown out for NOT having one, but they would not be able to be in this new DIV II? Thoughts?
I have posted some of these very questions/statements in a USL forum (possibly the one created when they came out with a partnership with HOK). This seems like a no brainer for clubs that don't want to build a more "permenant" structure until they know they have the fanbase (or to prove to the city that the demand is there to help finance something ... or give the land in a good location for it). To me, this should be how detroit moves forward (with either group that wants to move from PDL or NPSL to a higher level). I have no problems with a lower cost "proving ground" being done in places. In some places it makes sense to "prove" it in a baseball stadium, in others, something like what Sacramento has done (modest infustructure/cost). Get some food trucks and restroom trailers (sounds cheap, but some are nice) and you can do it relatively cheap and fast.
Sacramento didn't have to do that. They started in a football stadium although they did pretty quickly move into Bonney Field. You would reject FC Cincinnati because they are starting off at Nippert Stadium? NASL doesn't even require that. Right now roughly half that league plays in multi-purpose stadiums depending on how you define things. Miami FC, assuming that happens, looks likely to play in a college football stadium. Not sure why other would have to.
And are covered under the building code adopted by the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) OH MY GOD WHO THE FUCK CARES Stimulus can come in many forms, often either infrastructure improvements that allow development to occur or matching funds to make it possible for older structures to be occupied at a market rate, such as asbestos abatement, lead based paint abatement and other HAZMAT removals, or stabilization of old structural elements. No. There is no permanent structure. A permanent structures that is subject to the building code as adopted by the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) such as a municipal or county government. You can call it a Fiddle Crab if you want, but because it cannot be defined as a building under one of the major building codes in the US. No, but depending on the type of tax, people rarely see it coming out of their personal pocket. Probably the easiest tax to pass a tax on tickets to be sold at a particular venue or a tax on hotel/motel tenants. Cheap, no not really, given the lease costs.
I do, which is why I posted it. Maybe Sacramento is simply a really good soccer city and OKC is not... well, not yet, anyway... If Lamar Hunt was from NorCal, I'd bet Sac would have been an original MLS club. And I'd guess the Sac Bee and other media outlets there have never been as openly hostile to the sport as their OKC counterparts over the years prior to their recent conversion to soccer in the name of Energy FC...
What does it have to do with OKC | NASL |USL - You're like one of those goddamned Sounderfans that can't comment on something not remotely related to the Sounders without talking about the Sounders and their history Might have something to do with the people running it too If Tecumseh would have had a Sherman tank... Advertising dollars will silence radio / newspaper / critics of "sawker" faster than anything.
So Rayo Vellacano has bought the Majority interest of OKC FC and I thought you OKC FC fans didn't want to be a minor league team . After this season it appears that the Energy FC will an independent side playing in the USL but I guess OKC fans will be either a minor league team to MLS {not} or to the spanish La Liga side lol.
I never said anything about not wanting be "minor league". I preferably don't want to be a 'farm" team for anyone. I have NO idea how this is all going to play out, though.
Since when did fans get a say in pretty much any soccer team's ownership & operations? I give Funk 2 more seasons before he loses interest and the Energy fold
So there is already suspission that they are making soccer moves based on marketing/sponsors through their chinese team? Did I read that right? Coach and sporting director at odds due to them signing a chinese player that may/may not be good enough? Also ... Ronaldo sees action for the Strikers? I missed that. Sorry, that article isn't that well done. For someone who threw his hands up and basically said "I'm threw" with the NASL OKC FC effort and was a "I'll believe it when I see it on the field" type of attitude, you are back into posting links pretty heavy (here and the USL Energy forums). Not saying it's a bad thing, just find it interesting.
Hey, I'm STILL in the "I'll believe it when i see it" category. I felt like I got really burned over the past year. So I am very wary, but I found this very interesting. BTW, still ZERO word out of anyone in the OKCFC camp on this. Way too early to start buying my Viva Vallecas! flag ;-)