DCist: ISO Wealthy Developer for Long-term Relationship

hayden2

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:56:59 -0500

I love soccer a lot and i'm glad to hear that such a wonderful news.. ---milesMLS

hayden2

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:52:00 -0500

I bet thas was a very prestigious kind of a game like a soccer so about the topic i have no comment on that what I'm trying to Imply is i love soccer a lot _______ miles MLS

guest

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:59:52 -0500

MikeB - Your post has two separate fictions that I'd like to correct: 1. The San Jose Earthquakes, up until their 2003 title, had actually been quite awful. They managed to miss the playoffs in 4 consecutive seasons (1997-2000), in a league where 2/3 of the teams involved qualify (and in '97, it was 4/5). They did get 2 MLS Cups in their last 3 years of existence, but the idea that they were one of MLS's great franchises is blatantly false. They were given at best average support until the rumor of a move became a real threat. They were not one of the cornerstone franchises. 2. MLS did not throw the Earthquakes out of San Jose. AEG could not find a buyer (after buying the team just to help the then-struggling league out), and then gave up on getting a stadium done in SJ. Yes, their failure to get a stadium caused them to move away, but they were owned quite reluctantly by AEG. McFarlane and (especially) Chang seem much more enthusiastic about DC United, since it is MLS's best overall market.

guest

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:11:47 -0500

PUD stands for Planned Unit Development, not Planned Use Development. And last time I checked, DC had 5 teams, not 4: DC United Nationals Capitols Wizards Redskins

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:12:03 -0500

Guest #33: Houston has a soccer specific stadium? Really???????? Can you post the address at which this stadium is located? Guest #35: And San Jose Earthquakes were an incredibly successful franchise in terms of MLS Cups and winning record (Supporter's Shield for 1 season), AND a great organic rivalry with LA Galaxy that pulled good attendances. They may not have been as successful as DC United, but still they were pretty strong in their own right. That didn't prevent ruthless MLS from pulling them out of San Jose and dumping them in Houston. Don't be so falsely sure that DC United will be untouchable, simply because.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:52:30 -0500

To MikeB #34: Yeah, right! And we all know how Houston had all been ready with a stadium plan worked out, waiting with eager arms to welcome the team in their new stadium, one in which they have been playing ever since they moved out of San Jose. This all satisfied MLS requirements, and we all know how San Jose will be breaking ground on their new stadiums so many years after Houston. Oh wait!!! To Mike Licht: Would you prefer it, if I apologized to the entire reader base for your ignorance on your behalf? For sure, I know you aren't capable of it. OK, thanks. Here goes. Everyone, please don't mind Mike Licht. He is perpetually grumpy and likes to sound off on things he doesn't have faintest clue about. I apologize to all of you on his behalf.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:42:40 -0500

MikeB: True, but DC United is both successful with championships and attendance. It has one of the largest, if not the largest, fan base in MLS. I can't imagine MLS uprooting it because of a stadium. Well, I'll just cross my fingers that doesn't happen!

MikeB

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:32:46 -0500

And those who don't think MLS would move the United if a soccer-specific stadium isn't built -- it's happened already. Houston used to be the San Jose Earthquakes, one of the more successful teams at least in terms of championships (not sure how they were doing attendance wise). But MLS booted them out of SJ for lack of a stadium. Now that one has been proposed, the next expansion franchise will be San Jose.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:33:01 -0500

Oh, and most other large markets that have MLS have soccer specific stadiums. So while I know a lot of the people who are simply ignorant and don't want a stadium unless it's mandatory, it's one of those things that goes without saying. NYC has a new RedBulls stadium going up, Chicago has one, Toronto has one, Dallas, Houston, LA, they all have soccer specific stadiums, and even some smaller places like Salt Lake City. So if DC doesn't want the stadium, MD and VA will step up and the team WILL play their games in the exurbs.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:29:00 -0500

And Mike, you're also making it sound as if the McFarlane deal would rape DC like the Nats deal did. The McFarlane deal simply asked that DC contribute to paying for some of the infrastructure that would help the entire community, not just the stadium, and would have to be a part of any plan at Poplar Point regardless. "We don't mind competition, we just happen to think the D.C. United plan is the best we can get. It has affordable housing in it... it deals with the environment, it deals with jobs for Ward 8 residents and it deals with establishing businesses in the community. It bothers us over here east of the river, that we have been disrespected for so long that people just expect us to take this kind of stuff. We are not taking it no more," Barry said. I agree w/ Barry on this point. And from an aesthetic and cultural aspect, this would be a great development, most likely the proposals that Fenty gets will be more lame crap that while not awful, is not as good as getting something unique like what was planned before.

EdTheRed

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:20:12 -0500

Umm, Mike? The Poplar Point site is as close to a Metro station (Anacostia) as RFK is to Stadium Armory. Remember, there *is* such as thing as the Green Line. One of the main advantages of the site is that it's a large undeveloped parcel of land next to a Metro station, within the District limits. If the team didn't care about Metro access, they'd be looking elsewhere already.

EdTheRed

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:16:13 -0500

"DCU's rating are not better than the Caps, Nats and Wizards. That's a bold-faced commie lie and you know it." Well, let's see...looks like they're only about equal to the Wizards...but they crush the Caps: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011600553.html In Washington, [Kevin Payne] pointed out, cable ratings for D.C. United games on Comcast were about equal to ratings for Wizards regular season games and about 2 1/2 times greater than numbers for the Capitals.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:45:50 -0500

Cute title to the original article, I thought it looked familiar, and looked back at the DCmud post on August 23rd and realized where you took it from: http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2007/08/dc-bureaucrat-seeks-rich-ambitious-type.html

KR_in_DC

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:39:50 -0500

to Mike Licht: It not like DCU has lots of Orange Line options for stadium locations in the District. On what do you base your "greed" comment? DCU is simply trying to make it's franchise a viable business, and it will be with a new stadium (which will not be paid for by taxpayers, by the way).

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:31:58 -0500

Blackmail would only seem to work if DC or its residents had any real interest in keepin DCU in DC proper. Just seems like an empty threat. DCU in NOVA would unfold as the Nats stadium fiasco should have played out -- in Reston.

Mike Licht

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:20:46 -0500

Many DC United supporters come into RFK on the Orange Line, but team owners want to move off Metrorail to a place where river crossings are already notorious traffic pinch-points. While the owners have already shown their contempt by trying to blackmail DC into building them another stadium, this adds insult to injury. Attempts to establish U.S. professional soccer have failed three or four times in the past 40 years. Now the sport is taught in our schools and the New Immigration has provided a ready-made fan-base, but franchise holders seem determined to snuff out this latest effort through their own greed.

jessebkaye

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:18:51 -0500

It doesn't remove DC United as the possible focus of Poplar Point, in fact, it was recommended in the RFEI from DC, however I cannot understand any other developers supporting the venue since its MacFarlane that will be profiting most. Its a shame because I cannot see it being developed for less than $1.5 billion dollars (for all of Poplar Point) and they are negotiating over a measly $50 Million, comparatively speaking.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:06:28 -0500

DCU's rating are not better than the Caps, Nats and Wizards. That's a bold-faced commie lie and you know it.

EdTheRed

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:49:43 -0500

@guest 20: DCU's local ratings on Comcast SportsNet routinely beat ratings for the Caps and Wizards, and the ratings for the Nats on MASN. People would notice. Thanks for asking, though.

John

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:30:37 -0500

Anything that keeps the Redskins from building a godawful stadium within the L'Enfant footprint is a godsend. Football stadiums -- especially professional ones that are occupied just 10 days a year -- are a land-use and traffic planning nightmare.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:24:28 -0500

If Philadephia builds a soccer only stadium, the DC United will be gone in a heartbeat. Thankfully, Philly is about as screwed as DC when it comes to things like this. More likely, DC United will end up Northern Virginia.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:18:28 -0500

With MLS striving for tv ratings on par with pro bowling, bass fishing and competitive ballroom dancing, will anyone even notice if they leave?

Reid

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:15:04 -0500

"To those who think that MLS would pull DC United from here over the stadium issue they must be smoking crack" Depends on how you define "here". I agree that they are unlikely to remove the team from the DC-metro area, but that doesn't mean they'll keep them in DC proper. Several of the soccer-specific stadiums (if not most of them) are in suburban hinterlands. I think MLS would prefer a central location, but if it can't get it, it will settle for a location out in VA or MD. Personally, as a soccer fan, I would love to see the Poplar Stadium built. But as a DC taxpayer I recognize that MacFarlane's deal might not be the best for the city. I think it's worthwhile to explore other options, if not just to verify that MacFarlane's proposal is among the best. I think those that are freaking out over the RFP are implicitly admitting that the stadium idea isn't the best deal the city could get. Besides, we don't even own the land yet. The federal government does. It's not absolutely guaranteed that they will give it up to us yet.

Daniel

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:59:09 -0500

god help me... I am backing Barry on something.... To those who think that MLS would pull DC United from here over the stadium issue they must be smoking crack (ah, it couldn't be a reference to Barry without some crack suddenly appearing...).... DC is probably the most successful (both in numbers and probably finances) of any of the franchises.... Oh, and to the Author.... I do believe that there are 5 major Washington area sports teams (Redskins, United, Wizards, Capitols, Nationals).

developersagent com

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:46:41 -0500

MacFarlane isn't losing much by Fenty's decision. He and JG Company formed an LLC two weeks ago; URBAN JBG LLC and have plans to invest $10 Billion in the DC Metro area over the next 5 years. Not bad for a self-made billionaire!

KR_in_DC

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:45:35 -0500

The Wikipedia article says nothing about requiring soccer-specific stadiums. "To provide better facilities as well as to control revenue for the stadium, a major goal of MLS management is to build its own stadiums." I, for one, would love to see DC United at Poplar Point and the Redskins back at the RFK site with a new stadium. Fedex Field sucks. Not sure how realistic either scenario is, but...

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:42:31 -0500

The MLS teams that do not currently play in their own stadiums are: DC - no firm plans for new stadium NY - stadium under construction in Harrison NJ KC - plans for 22,000 seat stadium NE - plans for stadium in Sommerville, MA Houston - plans for new stadium Salt Lake - new stadium will open in 2008 Of these teams, the DC United stadium situation is by far the worst. Make no mistake, if DC United does not have a firm plan for a new stadium in the next 2-3 years, the franchise will move.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:41:46 -0500

I used to like Fenty. But after reneging on the DC United stadium, he's a typical douchebag politician. On the other hand, stupid naive me for thinking otherwise. DC United is consistently the most successful sports team in DC, 4 MLS cups and counting, it deserves a stadium in DC.

Reid

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:41:27 -0500

"Just how many MLS teams are in compliance with this "soccer only" stadium rule, anyway?" Six so far. Two more are being built. Five more have been proposed. I don't think it's a hard "rule" as much as a goal. But MLS has been quick to pull out of markets that don't commit to the idea of a soccer-specific stadium. So it's not like DC has been inviolation of a rule, particularly since the plans for Poplar Stadium seemed to be moving along. If and when those plans truly die, MLS will probably start threatening a move. And far from a death wish, soccer-specific stadiums are the thing that could really save MLS. MLS doesn't have to pay rent on them, and they can in turn rent them out for concerts and other events. Plus, with a smaller stadium, they can have higher capacity games, which adds to the excitement of each game and to the long-term viability of the league.

EdTheRed

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:36:19 -0500

The MLS rule isn't for existing teams, it's for potential expansion franchises, who must have plans for a soccer-specific stadium in place in order to have their expansion bid considered. Given the current shaky development market, good luck to Mayor Fenty finding a proposal that's better for the residents of Ward 8 than the one MacFarlane put on the table.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:34:30 -0500

The Redskins are not coming back to DC anytime soon. Snyder said as much in his interview this weekend with Comcast Sports. Remember, as much as everyone hates FedEx Field, Snyder is making a mint off of the place and that stadium and the deal Snyder has, is the primary reason why the Redskins are one of the highest valued franchises in all of American sports.

Mike Licht

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:32:38 -0500

Thanks, Poliburo. I would also suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium Dimensions of U.S. football fields before 1912, and the current size of Canadian football fields, are the FIFA-authorized optimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_football#Differences

Mike Licht

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:20:09 -0500

Just how many MLS teams are in compliance with this "soccer only" stadium rule, anyway? Sounds like another aspect of the US Pro Soccer death-wish to me.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:14:42 -0500

it references "all four of D.C.’s teams..." which 4 are these? i'd say the United were the forgotten 5th if it weren't for their explicit mention... just tell me it's not the Caps.

Politburo

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:14:03 -0500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer#Stadiums

IMGoph

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:05:56 -0500

thank you so much for the barry and levon reference, monkey!

jessebkaye

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:01:57 -0500

I didn't realize that MLS requires soccer specific stadiums...how has DC United been getting it away with it for this long?

VJ

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:58:05 -0500

Shoulda used "LTR" for "long-term relationship."

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:44:25 -0500

"Redskins might just be staying put for a long time." Never, never underestimate the greed and stupidity of Dan Snyder

Reid

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:42:38 -0500

I don't think the Redskins will leave Fed EX Field anytime soon, but if they were to leave, DC United would not be an obstacle to them returning to RFK's grounds. DC United has to be out of RFK in a couple years anyway. MLS requires cities to build soccer-specific stadiums or lose the team. So by the time Dan Snyder even comes close to seriously considering building a brand new stadium, DC United will be somewhere else. But really, either way the Redskins are going to stay put for some time.

monkeyrotica

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:39:26 -0500

Now that's the kind of PUDdin that only $200 million can buy. Aw yeah-uh.