Stadium Discussion

[EganSoccerWords]

Friday the NYT publishes an article with a s notatement by the club. To repeat for those following along, that’s a club statement, published, in the New York Times, the biggest newspaper in the country.
Anyone who read that would understand that the club, gave a statement, to the New York Times. It’s the dictionary definition of public knowledge.
Today Sims sends a letter to season ticket holders that references “the information that we provided in a statement to the New York Times,” and people treat it like admission of a conspiracy.
JFC we knew that yesterday. There was literally a statement, by the club, in the freaking newspaper. Sims admitted nothing. He referenced a public statement.

There is no evidence that the club planted the article or chose the publication date.

SoupInNYC has been trying to get an on record comment from all of these groups for literally months. There wasn't really a smoking gun that NY Times uncovered. I doubt NYCFC has the ability to dictate to the New York Times when to publish, but for all intents and purposes this looks like a well planned PR release of info. There is also a media event in this week with Sims that has been in the works that timed very well with this.

 

[mgarbowski]

Unless you're talking about something else completely, it was a slush find, but not one that was put under control of local pols:

Yankees Charity Neglects Stadium’s Neighbors (Published 2017)

A fund created by the Yankees as an olive branch to the communities around the stadium has disbursed millions. But a majority of that money has gone elsewhere.

www.nytimes.com

"A six-person board of directors controls all grant-making decisions. Michael Drezin, a former administrator of the fund who unsuccessfully sued it for mismanagement in 2009, said board members were chosen because of their connections to elected officials."

When you want to curry favor with politicians, you hire or give money to their family members and cronies. So, no, local politicians are not directly in charge. But they chose who got the money. This is how you put local pols in charge without the nasty accountability or legal restrictions that none of them want.

 

[mgarbowski]

SoupInNYC has been trying to get an on record comment from all of these groups for literally months. There wasn't really a smoking gun that NY Times uncovered. I doubt NYCFC has the ability to dictate to the New York Times when to publish, but for all intents and purposes this looks like a well planned PR release of info. There is also a media event in this week with Sims that has been in the works that timed very well with this.

Does anybody believe the club is not engaged in a PR push? I don't and that's not what I wrote. The accusation at issue is that the article is essentially fake and designed to cloud our minds so we forget about playing at RBA. That's what I reject.

Of course this article is part of a PR push to help create goodwill both among fans and the local community. And that's a good thing.

 

[Ulrich]

Does anybody believe the club is not engaged in a PR push? I don't and that's not what I wrote. The accusation at issue is that the article is essentially fake and designed to cloud our minds so we forget about playing at RBA. That's what I reject.

Of course this article is part of a PR push to help create goodwill both among fans and the local community. And that's a good thing.

I never said the article is fake. I said that there’s no way the NYTimes researched this article and got everybody to comment on it without the green light having been given by Sims/CFG. The question is why it’s greenlit now when NOTHING has been signed and it could still fall through - because as derek_villa points out, that SoupInNYC has been trying forever to get the same people to comment and they won’t and he’s the guy that put the first smoking gun article together. Plus there have been FOIA requests that have gone unanswered on the govt end, and yet now they’re also talking, so again, why start the PR push now when zilch has been signed????

 

[ZYanksRule]

I never said the article is fake. I said that there’s no way the NYTimes researched this article and got everybody to comment on it without the green light having been given by Sims/CFG. The question is why it’s greenlit now when NOTHING has been signed and it could still fall through - because as derek_villa points out, that SoupInNYC has been trying forever to get the same people to comment and they won’t and he’s the guy that put the first smoking gun article together. Plus there have been FOIA requests that have gone unanswered on the govt end, and yet now they’re also talking, so again, why start the PR push now when zilch has been signed????

The NY Times doesn't wait for a green light, though. They were given a statement and may have been given some information, but this isn't a PR article.

Why did they finally give the Times a statement? Because the status of the project has changed, and it's time to get the public involved. This is no longer useful to them to be secret. Now they need to marshall public opinion so they can finish the deal. This is moving from "secret negotiation" stage to public approvals, so we were all going to learn about it regardless of whether they released a statement.

 

[Ulrich]

The NY Times doesn't wait for a green light, though. They were given a statement and may have been given some information, but this isn't a PR article.

Why did they finally give the Times a statement? Because the status of the project has changed, and it's time to get the public involved. This is no longer useful to them to be secret. Now they need to marshall public opinion so they can finish the deal. This is moving from "secret negotiation" stage to public approvals, so we were all going to learn about it regardless of whether they released a statement.

The NYTimes was given way more than just “some information” - they hit the trifecta and then joined the craps table where they went on a run for five hours before cashing out.

Dude, you have no idea how construction companies and developers work - this stuff stays absolutely quiet until stuff is signed on the dotted line. MADDD just doesn’t happens to start giving up details of their negotiations or how they’re structuring the purchase.

Again, the status just happened to change last Friday?

 

[sundance]

No harm in asking -- I also think it's worth noting that they kind of have NYCFC by the balls. The team can't let this deal fall through now. So NYCFC might have to concede a few more community points than they otherwise would because they need the stadium more than the community does. This board has all the leverage, unless they don't have the power to nix the deal.

A couple of points: (1) the BID (Business Improvement District) is a different entity than the CB (Community Board) that will be voting on the land use proposal. The BID is a coalition of local business owners, basically, and doesn’t have any direct role in the legal process.

(2) The CB doesn’t have power to “nix” the deal. They can vote for it or against it, but it’s an advisory vote rather than a veto. (That being said, it would be politically difficult to get this over the line if the CB votes against it.)

BIDs are good . . . . I think you're confusing his request for a seat at the table for the development of the stadium and in determining the ongoing relationship with the neighborhood with a request for a material economic interest in the stadium.

To be fair, Gotham Gator has the ask correct. Cary Goodman is literally saying that 25% equity ownership in the stadium development should be distributed to current neighborhood business owners and residents.

Replacing Unsuccessful ‘Community Benefits Agreements’ with Neighborhood Stock Ownership Plans

Gotham Gazette is an online publication covering New York policy and politics as well as news on public safety, transportation, education, finance and more.

www.gothamgazette.com

Neighborhood Equity Ownership Plans: How Would They Work?

Gotham Gazette is an online publication covering New York policy and politics as well as news on public safety, transportation, education, finance and more.

www.gothamgazette.com

He’s been on this bit for about about six months now, and I remain just as astonished now as I was when he first brought it up. I get the problem he’s nominally trying to address — CBAs, if poorly structured, can provide less benefit in practice than the headline agreement would suggest — but as a solution, This ain’t it, chief. Better just to make a better CBA.

 

[ZYanksRule]

The NYTimes was given way more than just “some information” - they hit the trifecta and then joined the craps table where they went on a run for five hours before cashing out.

Dude, you have no idea how construction companies and developers work - this stuff stays absolutely quiet until stuff is signed on the dotted line. MADDD just doesn’t happens to start giving up details of their negotiations or how they’re structuring the purchase.

Again, the status just happened to change last Friday?

I get that part -- the team/developers were more than happy to have this information out there this week -- I guess what I'm arguing is that the timing of the release of this information doesn't change whether it's correct or not. Just because they obviously wanted this information out doesn't make it false, and doesn't mean this was targeted for the same day as the RBA news.

I fully understand that this was a targeted leak, I think we're just arguing different things.

 

[FredMertz]

A couple of points: (1) the BID (Business Improvement District) is a different entity than the CB (Community Board) that will be voting on the land use proposal. The BID is a coalition of local business owners, basically, and doesn’t have any direct role in the legal process.

(2) The CB doesn’t have power to “nix” the deal. They can vote for it or against it, but it’s an advisory vote rather than a veto. (That being said, it would be politically difficult to get this over the line if the CB votes against it.)


To be fair, Gotham Gator has the ask correct. Cary Goodman is literally saying that 25% equity ownership in the stadium development should be distributed to current neighborhood business owners and residents.

Replacing Unsuccessful ‘Community Benefits Agreements’ with Neighborhood Stock Ownership Plans

Gotham Gazette is an online publication covering New York policy and politics as well as news on public safety, transportation, education, finance and more.

www.gothamgazette.com

Neighborhood Equity Ownership Plans: How Would They Work?

Gotham Gazette is an online publication covering New York policy and politics as well as news on public safety, transportation, education, finance and more.

www.gothamgazette.com

He’s been on this bit for about about six months now, and I remain just as astonished now as I was when he first brought it up. I get the problem he’s nominally trying to address — CBAs, if poorly structured, can provide less benefit in practice than the headline agreement would suggest — but as a solution, This ain’t it, chief. Better just to make a better CBA.

I stand corrected -- apologies Gotham Gator.

I hope he's trying to anchor any negotiation at a very high number, because that figure is quite silly.

 

[FredMertz]

"A six-person board of directors controls all grant-making decisions. Michael Drezin, a former administrator of the fund who unsuccessfully sued it for mismanagement in 2009, said board members were chosen because of their connections to elected officials."

When you want to curry favor with politicians, you hire or give money to their family members and cronies. So, no, local politicians are not directly in charge. But they chose who got the money. This is how you put local pols in charge without the nasty accountability or legal restrictions that none of them want.

Right -- my point is, as the article makes clear -- it's not local pols, as in the stadium neighborhood. The money is finding itself somewhere else, which is something hyperlocal involvement should, could, might prevent.

 

[Ulrich]

I get that part -- the team/developers were more than happy to have this information out there this week -- I guess what I'm arguing is that the timing of the release of this information doesn't change whether it's correct or not. Just because they obviously wanted this information out doesn't make it false, and doesn't mean this was targeted for the same day as the RBA news.

I fully understand that this was a targeted leak, I think we're just arguing different things.

Nobody has argued that this information is false or fake. Not once. The argument is that it was planted with a roadmap with who to approach for comments.

Why would they agree to answer questions now from NYTimes with nothing signed guaranteeing the stadium? Why on this particular Friday (midday release by the times, not something planned for the morning, kinda like it was pulled together and published instead of waiting for the weekend Realestate section)? Why is the biggest news about the stadium from the team an anticlimactic email on a Saturday - if I was planning to greenlight the suspension of NDAs, it wouldn’t be with on the record comments to mainstream media, I’d release the information with the greatest bang to it - maybe at halftime of the CCL saying we may be in NJ tonight but this plan on the Jumbotron outlines the roadmap to our permant address in the Bronx - make a splash. They could hint to STH that they may really want to show up that night for long awaited news to ensure the turnout on top of the free tix. But they didn’t do that, they gave up all the goods they’d been hiding for years, to a media outlet that didn’t break the news, SoupInNYC did, and its just weird.

And it goes back to my question- what changed all of a sudden last Friday to all start talking..... besides that particular event/piece of news that painted the club really poorly and made them the butt of jokes around the league.

 

[The Toe]

I think the stadium progress was their ace in the hole. They know their constraints and the inevitability of the announcement and waited until they had bad news to finally open up. They might not have wanted anything to get out unless they had another upheaval from the fans. Like drinking a potion in a video game they had the whole time. That’s not to say they prompted the NYTimes article, but they may have opened up more when they knew bad news was coming.

 

[Ulrich]

I think the stadium progress was their ace in the hole. They know their constraints and the inevitability of the announcement and waited until they had bad news to finally open up. They might not have wanted anything to get out unless they had another upheaval from the fans. Like drinking a potion in a video game they had the whole time. That’s not to say they prompted the NYTimes article, but they may have opened up more when they knew bad news was coming.

You played Gauntlet as a kid at the arcade, didn’t you?

 

[SoupInNYC]

161st Street BID looks to be part owner of soccer stadium coming to Grand Concourse

Members of the 161st Street Business Improvement District are asking to be part owners of a new soccer field coming to the community.

bronx.news12.com

More more more!

This is a very poorly put together headline. The 161 St BID is not looking to be a part owner of the stadium. The 161 St BID is proposing the idea that local business owners and residents have the option to purchase ownership of the stadium. That is completely different.

I've spoken with Cary Goodman on this specifically and he is looking to have a certain % of ownership be available to be purchased by local residents/businesses. The headline seems to imply that the 161 St BID itself becomes a part owner and with the way its worded, I bet some people have a take away that it is "free" ownership and not something that is purchased into.

This is something that I personally haven't thought through the pros/cons of and see if its something that I agree with or not. But I will admit at the very least that it is a clever idea to try to bring the local community more into decisions that are made.

 

[moogoo]

This is a very poorly put together headline. The 161 St BID is not looking to be a part owner of the stadium. The 161 St BID is proposing the idea that local business owners and residents have the option to purchase ownership of the stadium. That is completely different.

I've spoken with Cary Goodman on this specifically and he is looking to have a certain % of ownership be available to be purchased by local residents/businesses. The headline seems to imply that the 161 St BID itself becomes a part owner and with the way its worded, I bet some people have a take away that it is "free" ownership and not something that is purchased into.

This is something that I personally haven't thought through the pros/cons of and see if its something that I agree with or not. But I will admit at the very least that it is a clever idea to try to bring the local community more into decisions that are made.

If they want to contribute or invest in the stadium then I'm all for that. With some stipulations of course. For example, just cause they have a part ownership doesn't mean they get to bring in any event they want any time they want. Thanks soup. Makes things much clearer if that's the case. That article is very misleading.

 

[Kjbert]

Lol

So the article said they want to be part owners... But the project, as far as we know, is gonna be privately funded. This is an example of asking for too much. Some stipulations for community use and stuff like that sure. But wanting a cut of profits? Am I reading that right?

Yea. That’s the only thing that matters in that article. And this is why you don’t tak about this before you have approvals. Screw Cary Goodman

 

[Kjbert]

I think it’s terrible to have another seat in the room. 100% control of your own stadium. Don’t invite in anyone else that may have a differing view of how the stadium is to be used. What’s the upside?

 

[ZYanksRule]

I think it’s terrible to have another seat in the room. 100% control of your own stadium. Don’t invite in anyone else that may have a differing view of how the stadium is to be used. What’s the upside?

The upside is if you don't allow them to have a seat at the table, they squash the deal. If this is the only thing standing in the way of a done deal, you suck it up and do it because this team can not let this deal fall apart now that they've confirmed it.

And even had they not confirmed it, they couldn't let this get in the way of a final deal anyway -- this isn't a dealbreaker. And I'd be shocked if this was anything more than the occasional HS game, maybe a HS football game or something.

 

[Christopher Jee]

I'd think about becoming a resident in order to have a share in the stadium tbh. I wonder how locally they are gonna be restricting it.

 

[sundance]

I'd think about becoming a resident in order to have a share in the stadium tbh. I wonder how locally they are gonna be restricting it.

Keep in mind, this isn’t a real thing. It’s a fantasy dreamed up by one dude who isn’t even involved in the approval process.