Expansion Rumors Megathread

$200 million easy for stadium, land will probably cost more. Then there's the infrastructure. Orlando is even paying the city BACK for things they purchased. Mind blowing. That's the way to show your serious and committed.
 
MagnusPax said:
$200 million easy for stadium, land will probably cost more. Then there's the infrastructure. Orlando is even paying the city BACK for things they purchased. Mind blowing. That's the way to show your serious and committed.
Click to expand...
That's pretty interesting! I wasn't aware they were going to pay the city back.
 
Kjbert said:
Why? Between land and stadium - should be about $400 Million from everything we've read.
Click to expand...

"Everything you've read" are the reports on the costs assuming taxpayer support - $400m after deductions. As said elsewhere, costs would also be much lower if working in partnership with the government as less people an organisations would have to be bought off buying paying a premium for absolutely everything.

Compare, if you will, the cost of building Wembley Stadium and the Olympic Stadium (which West Ham are due to move into in 2016) as I understand land prices and so on aren't too dissimilar between the two cities. Admittedly both stadia are somewhat larger in capacity but the land footprint is not too much bigger (the Olympic Stadium is surrounded by a park, but that land was a separate project). Both stadia cost, including government assistance, about £700m to build, which is around $1b. I would expect the cost of our stadium to be comparative.
 
Falastur said:
"Everything you've read" are the reports on the costs assuming taxpayer support - $400m after deductions. As said elsewhere, costs would also be much lower if working in partnership with the government as less people an organisations would have to be bought off buying paying a premium for absolutely everything.

Compare, if you will, the cost of building Wembley Stadium and the Olympic Stadium (which West Ham are due to move into in 2016) as I understand land prices and so on aren't too dissimilar between the two cities. Admittedly both stadia are somewhat larger in capacity but the land footprint is not too much bigger (the Olympic Stadium is surrounded by a park, but that land was a separate project). Both stadia cost, including government assistance, about £700m to build, which is around $1b. I would expect the cost of our stadium to be comparative.
Click to expand...
Won't West Ham build a stadium with a larger capacity than ours though? If I was CFG I wouldn't want to spend a billion dollars on a 20-30 thousand seat stadium that might need to be upgraded to increase capacity in a few years.
 
Z4CH3B99 said:
Won't West Ham build a stadium with a larger capacity than ours though? If I was CFG I wouldn't want to spend a billion dollars on a 20-30 thousand seat stadium that might need to be upgraded to increase capacity in a few years.
Click to expand...

When West Ham take over the Olympic Stadium it will be 60,000 seater. I would expect our stadium to be cheaper, sure, but I don't think you can say "if the stadium has half the seats it'll be half the cost", the reduction will be much smaller than that. My point is, I reckon that $400m is a long shot off the actual cost of the stadium, and is instead what we are proposing to pay ourselves if others foot part of the bill.
 
Falastur said:
When West Ham take over the Olympic Stadium it will be 60,000 seater. I would expect our stadium to be cheaper, sure, but I don't think you can say "if the stadium has half the seats it'll be half the cost", the reduction will be much smaller than that. My point is, I reckon that $400m is a long shot off the actual cost of the stadium, and is instead what we are proposing to pay ourselves if others foot part of the bill.
Click to expand...
If it is significantly smaller I don't understand why we would be paying upwards of 400 million. Other than the fact that the land costs a ridiculous amount of money and they city is unwilling to do anything.
 
MagnusPax said:
I think land value is higher in NYC than London. No?
Click to expand...

I think that depends on where in each city you're talking about. There will be areas in both cities where it just goes off the chart, and areas where it's much more reasonable. The figures I saw suggested that land in London is on the whole more expensive, though, but land in NYC costs a lot more to maintain.
 
Real estate in London is more expensive than in New York. Stratford was an exception in that is was the most distressed area of the city north of the Thames.

QPR would be a better comparison as they're in a more fashionable part of the city. They're looking to build a 40,000 seat stadium in West London for around $300 million.

I've not been to any purpose built soccer stadiums in the US but based on my experience of other stadia, Americans expect more in terms of facilities. English fans are content queuing for 20 minutes for a stale pie and a pint of flat beer, while Yankee Stadium has sushi bars and steak houses.

QPR's costs would not include any car parking either, which seems to be a prerequisite for building a stadium in the US, even in New York City.

I think $400 million would be more than enough, and with real estate prices predicted to rise in NYC more than anywhere else in the world in the next 5 years, the land itself would be a nice little investment.
 
NYCFCFan10 said:
I really believe this is a new, league-wide idea to co-op stadiums with universities.

LAFC with USC, Miami and even we are linked with Columbia University. Hoping to catch those college kids who are a major demographic for soccer in the country right now. Obviously, each situation is slightly different and I think the league would still prefer downtown stadiums first and foremost but in our larger, more dense cities this seems to be the new playbook.
Click to expand...

College kids are not a target demographic for soccer. They're flaky and in most cities they disappear after 3 or 4 years. NYC may be unique, as it often is.

Anyway, most kids have chosen their favorite pro-team by High School. There's no way MLS could compete with college football for college students in Miami or LA.

Galaxy rarely fill more than 80% of StubHub Center, where are the extra 15-20,000 fans for a second team going to come from? Soccer in Miami has already failed twice, with neither pro franchise lasting more than 4 years before quitting and going to Tampa.

It worries me that MLS is going after the "glamor" markets instead of expanding to cities where there is already a demand for soccer, whether live or on TV. try Sacramento, Indy, Vegas and Tulsa, the last one having surprisingly high EPL ratings.
 
Last edited:
bigapplepie said:
College kids are not a target demographic for soccer. They're flaky and in most cities they disappear after 3 or 4 years. NYC may be unique, as it often is.

Anyway, most kids have chosen their favorite pro-team by High School. There's no way MLS could compete with college football for college students in Miami or LA.

Galaxy rarely fill more than 80% of StubHub Center, where are the extra 15-20,000 fans for a second team going to come from? Soccer in Miami has already failed twice, with neither pro franchise lasting more than 4 years before quitting and going to Tampa.

It worries me that MLS is going after the "glamor" markets instead of expanding to cities where there is already a demand for soccer, whether live or on TV. try Sacramento, Indy, Vegas and Tulsa, the last one having surprisingly high EPL ratings.
Click to expand...

Same place NYCFC found their 8,000 extra fans from. But LAFC will have the added advantage of a brand new SSS.

Secondly Toronto's top team was drawing 2000 fans before MLS gave that city TFC. Also, there was no demand for soccer in Utah before RSL.
 
Gazza_55 said:
Same place NYCFC found their 8,000 extra fans from. But LAFC will have the added advantage of a brand new SSS.

Secondly Toronto's top team was drawing 2000 fans before MLS gave that city TFC. Also, there was no demand for soccer in Utah before RSL.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Utah Blitzz drew more than Toronto Lynx.
 
bigapplepie said:
College kids are not a target demographic for soccer. They're flaky and in most cities they disappear after 3 or 4 years. NYC may be unique, as it often is.
Click to expand...

True, and since MLS runs March to October, college students will only be in class in the beginning of the season and the end of the season.

But MLS will target recent college grads / young professionals with disposable income.
 
jerseyhotspur said:
ugh, do you think they chose "United" because they wanted to be like the cools kids OR did actual soccer clubs "unite" to form the MLS club?
Click to expand...
Name most focus groups are cool with. People need to remember everyone knows Manchester United, and focus groups are made of up every day people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LionNYC
  • Sticky
Official NYCFC Forums League - 2024!
Replies
0
Views
1,621
LionNYC
LionNYC
Shwafta
  • Sticky
NYCFC Survivor [2024 Edition] General Discussion
2
Replies
20
Views
668
Shwafta
Shwafta
mgarbowski
NYCFC Season Discussion 2024: The Definition of NYCFC is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Getting the Same Result
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
10,062
gbservis
gbservis
LionNYC
Guess The Attendance 2023 - NYCFC vs. Dallas (April 22)
Replies
8
Views
1,976
ZYanksRule
ZYanksRule
KevinJRogers
Football Data and Statistics
Replies
14
Views
1,611
KevinJRogers
KevinJRogers
Back
Top