Why lose $3 million a year so 15-17 year olds can play against men?
Player sales. Better, cheaper MLS talent. Cap space. Fan interest. Brand building. Community outreach. Growing soccer in your area. Long-term profits if USL succeeds.
Why lose $3 million a year so 15-17 year olds can play against men?
Hassam Ndam is 20 -- highly regarded -- and got almost all of his minutes in RB2 last year. If you cut off at U19 players like him have nowhere to go.Why would we invest in a 22 year old player? Like, ever (non goalkeeper).
Hassam Ndam is 20 -- highly regarded -- and got almost all of his minutes in RB2 last year. If you cut off at U19 players like him have nowhere to go.
Read it. It makes no sense. An appropriately sized venue at Willets is a waste of the space and anything north of 10k without NYCFC as an anchor tenant would be an albatross.
Why wouldn't they build a stadium for NYCFC and have a USL team play there?
Because they're discussing a 10k-25k stadium. As Fred notes, that range makes no sense. Well, except for one reason only, which is that this is a backup site to NYCFC's preferred site in the Bronx. If the Bronx plan succeeds, Queens is 10k. If not, Queens is 25k and shared by the two teams.You read it because Villa is now partnering with the two individuals we thought were our advocates. Go back now and rethink all of the conversations we had on here every time Moya and Katz ever spoke about a soccer stadium. And now realize they were talking about Villa.
Because they're discussing a 10k-25k stadium. As Fred notes, that range makes no sense. Well, except for one reason only, which is that this is a backup site to NYCFC's preferred site in the Bronx. If the Bronx plan succeeds, Queens is 10k. If not, Queens is 25k and shared by the two teams.
Read it. It makes no sense. An appropriately sized venue at Willets is a waste of the space and anything north of 10k without NYCFC as an anchor tenant would be an albatross.
Why wouldn't they build a stadium for NYCFC and have a USL team play there?
You guys are looking at this USL/U19 debate through the lens of a fan.
Look at it through the lens of a business owner, specifically our Club. Why would you throw $3 million a year down the toilet to let’s 5-7 kids a hear play professionally and then have to carry another 15 guys who you have no interest in ever signing?
Would expect Villa’s academy would also be build out there and probably use the fields, so upkeep is for community and for him.NYCFC clearly isn't doing something right or doesn't want the site. It's entirely conceivable that CFG has a terrible business strategy in private and is poorly negotiating or acting in bad faith. They can't even seem to find a developer to partner with. The positive inference to make is that the Bronx site is nearly wrapped up, but the smoke there has seemed to die down.
It's not inconceivable that Katz and Moya really don't care who brings soccer to Queens, and Villa found partners that came in with private investment and a large community involvement plan that CFG is too entitled to propose. A smaller scale proposal can absolutely be a better option than a 25k option depending on the details.
My speculation is that CFG are difficult to work with and want a lot of concessions. Villa and partners said "we'll build a 10k-seater, privately financed, and maintain the Flushing Meadows fields and provide community programs. Oh, and the stadium will be expandable to 25k if CFG ever get their head out their asses." Why wouldn't Queens jump on that? Worst case scenario, you have some new entertainment infrastructure and a "minor" league soccer team representing the borough in a fully-national league. Best case, you end up luring NYCFC over and bring those crowds to the borough without all the concessions CFG is requesting.
EDIT: Put another way, if we the fans think that NYCFC is "entitled" to Willet's Point, imagine how much entitlement CFG probably feels and brings to the negotiating table.
I'm not fully onboard with the CFG-owned USL team either. I actually like the affiliate model - just do block loans every year to Hartford Athletic or something. If we are just trying to get a handful of U23's game time against adults, do we need the operational costs of a full USL team?
The problem with this plan from a player development perspective is that it assumes Hartford—the only viable USL team for NYCFC high schoolers—is going to build its squad to leave room at the position we need to develop, sees our kid as their best option, will bring him along at the pace we think is best, is happy to let him go whenever NYCFC wants him, hires its coaching staff in part for their ability to develop teenagers, and happens to play a system and style compatible with ours.
It also assumes Hartford Athletic isn't already affiliated with the Revs: https://www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/new-england-revolution/revolution-hartford-athletic-affiliation/
While I appreciate that argument, isn't that how player development was done for most of the entire history of professional soccer though? Suddenly if we don't own the team we are loaning a young player to, we are doing it wrong?
The middle ground is the hybrid model. NYCFC has techincal control (coaches, players). Separate ownership controls the business sideI'm not fully onboard with the CFG-owned USL team either. I actually like the affiliate model - just do block loans every year to Hartford Athletic or something. If we are just trying to get a handful of U23's game time against adults, do we need the operational costs of a full USL team?
The middle ground is the hybrid model. NYCFC has techincal control (coaches, players). Separate ownership controls the business side
Why do we care how much money CFG spends? It's literally immaterial to them.we need the operational costs of a full USL team?
Why do we care how much money CFG spends? It's literally immaterial to them.
I spent a little time yesterday looking for obscure updates -- good or bad -- and there are none I can find. So while there's nothing positive there is also nothing to indicate that the developer is going forward at the site but without a stadium, or that a completely different proposal has been selected.The positive inference to make is that the Bronx site is nearly wrapped up, but the smoke there has seemed to die down.
Bid 66.25 but as I said I'm not distressed debt trader, I don't know if there is real size behind that or its just a dummy quote. I don't see it as having any trade volume for a while. As far as pro-level access, bbg doesn't do much more then what you can research. Esoteric stuff is handled on dealer runs, and not being in this industry I am not privy to real markets.I spent a little time yesterday looking for obscure updates -- good or bad -- and there are none I can find. So while there's nothing positive there is also nothing to indicate that the developer is going forward at the site but without a stadium, or that a completely different proposal has been selected.
I also tried to get an update on the price of the garage bonds relative to what Rimil reported here
http://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/stadium-discussion.21/page-722#post-260684
As of late September, the price was $57, up from a low of $20 last December. It's hard to find without pro level access.
MunicipalBonds.com indicates the last trades for this thinly traded security was on December 3 for $66-67.
https://www.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/649438FN3/
But when I got a quote thru my brokerage account it said $32.
I'm inclined to believe the $67 price but would appreciate confirmation from someone with better access. If the $67 is correct, and the price has more than tripled in a year, then people are betting on a deal. Something is happening at that site, and the Maddd Equities proposal is the only one ever disclosed publicly.
Anyway, for me, the bond price is the smoke.