there is an etihad stadium in australia too thats what they renamed their stadium after they bought melbourne
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
they can but their (orlando) stadium is only 150 mil and land down there is much much cheaper
Land, and construction, both are cheaper.
And the government actually gets things done.
And the government actually gets things done.
ferrarinycfc
Registered
Melbourne City play at AAMI Park, which is a different stadium.
Etihad stadium(non-sponsor name is Docklands Stadium) is an Australian Rules Football Stadium which changed its name to Etihad Stadium in 2009. Its used on occasions by Melbourne Victory and for finals games.
Perhaps, but when you consider Orlando's majority owner, Flavio Augusto da Silva, is worth between $350 to $450 million, your point is rendered moot. There really is no argument in this case. CFG, regardless of any comparison, can easily finance their stadium 100%.
Last edited:
ahh i see i googled etihad stadium australia and also saw melbourne thrown in there so i just figured...good to know though maybe we won't have that same fate
i know they can and they should....no beating around the bush to get public financing because that will just delay the whole process they have more money than they know what to do with.
That would be Vincent Tan the Bond Villain and Cardiff. Although when people started protesting enmasse and stopped coming he changed it back somewhat.
Thing is, while CFG may have splashed a lot of cash, trying to just use their cash to build a stadium in the middle of NYC with no outside support whatsoever may make the project colossally expensive. People talk about CFG's wealth as unlimited, but it's possible that they've worked out that the cost of the project would go most of the way to $1b and they've turned around and gone "that's simply too much" and decided that even 3 year delays are worth it if they halve the cost.
For all the posts, there hasn't been any news since the Columbia announcement and even that was just a consideration for a new stadium. So basically the last time where was any stadium news was when the Bronx deal fell through two years ago.
I hate sponsored names for stadiums. It's such bullsh*t. I like old-school classic stadiums with non-sponsored names.
You know, like Wrigley Field.
Mr. Wrigley owned the team. So it was kind of like Red Bulls.
Sarcasm?
Fenway Park................
Other than speculative reports there hasn't been any real stadium news in quite a while. I can't see that with all the people involved in any stadium project, there wouldn't be a leak. So they have nothing. The read somewhere that the Columbia story was started by a booster. I have a feeling that they are waiting to see how it works out with Yankee stadium. It's a win win for them and the Yankees to just stay put. Other than the MLS pushing for a SSS, I can't imagine they're in any rush unfortunately.
Or then again, maybe not.
That would give us City Field and Citi Field in the same city/i. I don't think any party would be happy with that.
Similar threads
