What would you like in a new stadium?, v. 7.0

Wrong, the city has owned the FMC site for well over a decade. They purchased it in 1998 if I'm not mistaken.

I stand corrected, it was 5% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_stadiums

Hint, little if any is needed off the site, and on the site is the responsibility of the developer, ie Wolff

How so? They're still stadiums, they were all publically funded. And 3 of them in the last 20 years. Ignoring them doesn't change the fact they're there and that they were all built and two of them rebuilt, with public funds.

Sure, we should have waited for what was left of the fanbase to disperse and MLS to forget about the region completely.

Yes because MLS has been a great income generator for the owners so far

How can you talk about what he's "NOT spending" without acknowledging what he is spending. And also recongizing what he's spending in the context of the current economic climate and in relation to the other franchises. When you do that Wolff and Co. are some of the higher spenders in the league on their team.

First off, any "rumors" of Columbus moving are just BS from BS. Columbus isn't going anywhere. Secondly, DC's issues are entirely releated to the fact their home stadium has a limited lifespan left and is the worst economic situation in MLS, it has nothing to do with their attendance. Third, if we're in our own stadium, controlling our own revenue streams, selling out regularly, and turning a profit, we're not going anywhere. And lastly, as for "not building for the future", how is the latest word we've heard not building for the future. Way I see it, a stadium with room left for expansion (the two berms) is most definitely built with the future very much in mind.

 

Knowing our front office I'm sure this is what they have in mind for us...

 

Beats the shit out of the previous one.

 

Goodsport will be thrilled. It has a roof .

 

I stand corrected, not only did the city not provide any public funds but they also did not give a 10% tax abatement it was merely a 10 Million Dollar tax abatement, far less than 10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Park

That means little if nothing at all. The fact that Wolff has a property that already has basically all it's infrastructure in place is just a indication of how prime the property location is.

We are discussing privately funded stadiums. Comparing any stadium that has public financing simple is a distraction.

Well if that is the kind of fan base we are then, I guess we don't deserve anything at all.

I seem to recall that Wolff purchased the franchise for 30 Million by exercising the exclusive three year contract given to him in 2006 by the league. Given that he could sell the franchise today for 40 million he has increased his bottom line considerably.

It is also important to recognize that virtually no sports franchise is an "income generator", they are however, wealth creators by virtue of their increased value.

Has LW created income by owning the Quakes? No.

Has he increased his wealth and value by owing the Quakes? Yes, exponentially.

I am acknowledging what he is spending and stating unequivocally that it is far too small an amount to guarantee the future success of the Quakes as an MLS franchise.

From your mouth to Garbers ears. Though if I were you I would not place any bets on your belief.

Indeed, DC has great attendance and a great history, and despite all that, their future in DC is almost assuredly over.

Just keep Las Vegas, er, I mean Columbus in mind.

LW, whose word you take for gospel on all matters Quake related has already stated unequivocally he will not design the stadium with future expansion in mind, nor will he even contemplate the idea of expansion.

I wonder why it is that you choose to dis believe LW on only this one issue?

LW will build the stadium, then give it to the city so he will have to pay no taxes, no maintenance and certainly no expansion. Do you really think the city will pay to expand the stadium that LW will not expand?

I know you have been called an apologist and a shill and several other invectives, but you could go a long way to dispel these claims by being just a bit more realistic about LW's motives regarding the stadium.

You need to admit that LW is planning on building the smallest, most no frills stadium in the league and considering for the foreseeable future virtually all our operating income is going to come from stadium revenues, LW is limiting the very source of revenue that will allow him to operate a competitive team in the MLS.

If the MLS were ever to become a successful single table league, with a more reasonable salary cap, we could almost be assured of being at the bottom of the table every year by virtue of our not being able to generate any operating income off such a tiny stadium.

While league single-entity and parity have created a remarkably level competition for wins and titles in MLS, there is a clear division between the haves and have-nots on another level that is almost as important -- facilities.

Owning stadiums gives teams the right size venue to make the game an intimate and exciting experience for fans. It allows for corporate sponsorship via luxury boxes and private suites and increased advertising revenue via naming rights and stadium signage. Since a stadium is usually custom-designed to the team's colors and image, it grants the team a greater identity and sense of permanence in a community.

I sometimes wonder if LW's investment in the Quakes will eventually go the way of LW's investment in the St. Louis Blues and the Golden State Warriors. LW does not seem to be vested in Long term ownership interests of sports franchises that do not offer him immediate return on his investment.

Perhaps unlike you, I believe that the Quakes can consistently fill a 20-25k stadium if they invest in quality players and proper marketing.

I'm quite sure that you are as tired of hearing me complain about our future stadium as I am tired of hearing you defend what is in my mind LW's very short sighted plan for the Quakes future.

 

Well at least we agree on one thing, we're tired of hearing what each other have to say on the stadium issue...

 

In very many respects this is true, but I wonder if the exclusive 3 year option granted to LW in 2005 by the MLS hurt us more than helped us.

I think it is fair to assume that we could possibly have gotten a better ownership group if it were a free market competition for the franchise.

 

There is one more thing we agree on. Your unbridled belief in LW's stadium plan is going to cost you $100 come December 31st 2009

 

lol

 

A month ago I would have agreed with you, but after Wolff's latest interview I'm not so sure. Sounds like shovels could be in the dirt pretty fast if the vote passes May 5th and they get the stadium sponsor squared away (here's hoping it's EA).

 

Maybe assuming anyone else was interested. While AEG wasn't exactly extensive in their search for another owner prior to the move to Houston, they didn't exactly have anyone banging their doors down for the team either.

 

See, that unbridled faith of yours just perseveres through all facts and reality.

Considering it will take 12-18 months to build a stadium, closer to twelve taking into account our building season and the scaled down design. There is nothing to justify believing the shovels will hit the ground before summer 2010 at the earliest.

 

AEG never wanted nor did they really try to sell the team. Their intent was to move all along. Considering the recent expansion of Seattle, Vancouver and Portland, I believe it would be safe to assume that we could have and probably would have found one or more interested parties in bringing back the Quakes franchise.

 

Well just call me an optimist. (and just for the record, you can add this to the list of things I believe along with the berms that goes in opposition to things Wolff has said in the past since he also said shovels wouldn't be in the ground in 09).

 

Except those 3 cities you mention all have local or locally invested ownership groups. Not sure any of the 3 would have been interested in buying the Quakes (unless it was to move them to one of those cities in which case we'd be right back where we started if not worse off).

 

I recall fairly specifically, at the time we made the bet, you not only believed that the Quakes would be in the midst of stadium construction in 2009 but you also expressed some belief that we would be playing in our stadium by 2010

I wasn't saying that those three owners would have bought the Quakes, merely that there is an obvious desire by more than a few egotistical billionaires to own MLS franchises.

It's like the Las Vegas investor who now owns a major share of the Columbus Crew franchise and has made it clear he intends to force the sale of the remaining percentage so that he can buy it.

On a related note. I'm sure you, like most season ticket holders received the survey from Kelsey seeking your opinion on various Quake related matters. I was particularly disturbed by two questions:

• How would you feel about one or more games being played in Sacramento?

• How would you feel about one or more games being played in San Francisco?

Personally I was horrified at the thought of playing in Sacramento or San Francisco, despite the fact that I live in San Francisco. It's bad enough I have to travel to Oakland twice a year and deal with baseball field configurations, now they want to know if I would travel to Sacramento?

I'm starting to understand why they are not investing in a first class stadium. Apparently they envision us as being a traveling team with 3 or 4 "home" stadium venues.

 

I wasn't pleased by that either to be honest and my answer to them reflected that. Even though all of NorCal is the Quakes territory I don't support them playing anything but exhibitions outside of the south bay (except our occasional Oakland game short term). But I don't think I'd make the jump you did just yet. I think that's why they asked the season ticket holders, to gauge the response (which I assume was a resounding negative considering how sour everyone is on playing in Oakland currently). And considering the rest of the survey those 2 questions were included in I wouldn't get too concerned. You ask questions like that to find out what the response would be in the first place. And frankly it's nice they were asking our opinions on a broad range of things.

 

I wouldn't be too sure. When I asked My ticket rep about it his exact words were:

"We have a huge fan base in the Sacramento area."

I'm not sure how they know that, but gauging by the small season ticket base, they might just feel it is a good risk to reward ratio in holding some regular season games in Sacto.

Perhaps they feel that the few San Jose based season ticket holders they would lose would be made up for with Sacramento area fans?

Either way, they certainly know what city their season ticket holders live in. They know I live in San Francisco and might assume I would just as easily attend a game in Sacramento as in San Jose.

While I appreciate the fact that they are asking questions, I don't like the direction the questions are heading.

 

I not sure I want to get in the middle of this, but....

I agree that AEG never wanted to sell the team and that their goal all along was to move to Houston. That being said I think the guys from Soccer Silicon Valley put a lot of effort into identifying a potential buyer for the franchise and didn't find many serious candidates with the kind of cash MLS requires.

 

"Embarrassingly low?" The 15K stadium with double-berminations seems more like a foot in the door. A true home field with controlled revenue is the proper foundation to building a greater organization.

I think people underestimate the modern economic climate. As an appraiser, I visit more foreclosed homes than those occupied by people, either selling or refinancing. We now have an extra market data page because previously free-wheeling banks are so conservative these days. Our government had to take over billion-dollar industries. This is unprecedented territory in the history of our entire planet (!) so treat it as such.

The fact that we have an owner willing to pay his share is enough for me. If this was 1999, I'd join the bitching. If we still have nothing more than 15K when times are good again, then I'll join the bitching. As of now, I'll take some/any progress. Attendance issues do not currently mandate anything more than 15K anyway; just look at Chicago (since MM10S and SixKick love to rag on us so much). A fairly new, shiny facility means less than the penny-pinching of fans league-wide.

 

I just put the swansea stadium as an example as it showed you dont need to spend huge amount of dollars to get a pretty decent stadium. The stadium is used for soccer and rugby and concerts as well and can be used for conferences etc.

All it really needs is some video screens and its good to go.

DC united were talking about 195 million for their stadium which although would be about 25,000 seats still seems way too much money.

Im pretty sure construction costs are much cheaper in the US than in England, and with the current economy you will never find a better time to build as everything will be much cheaper now.