Which of those would be the best in your opinion? I'm just concerned that I won't be able to see the whole playing field because of how the stands are situated.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
cool, just curious since it probably would of been easier to a fan of a texas MLS team since they are technically closer.
well dont matter happy to have more fans of nycfc from anywhere on the planet.
If money is no issue? Sit in the first 15 rows of 126. Probably won't be able to fully see the ball in the corner.
Or sit above in 200s. I think you can see the corner flag there.
Well, I guess that depends on exactly how much money. Lol
Anyway, thanks for your help!
I used to have a half interest in the Dynamo when Brian Ching played for them. I haven't really cared for them since he retired.
The Texas teams do a horrible job of marketing towards the soccer fans in this state. The Dynamo have alienated everyone who doesn't have Root Sports. It's the only channel that shows their games besides ESPN or FS1 and those two only show nationally televised games.
My interest in MLS was renewed with the introduction of the two new expansion sides NYCFC and Orlando. I wanted to follow one of these two teams and decided upon NYCFC. My descion to follow NYC was based off of my love of the city and this forum.
I love sitting in section 225. It's basically midfield, high enough off the ground to see what's going on (the corner to your left as you're sitting is sometimes obscured), and, entertainingly, right next to the away-supporters' section.
Also right by the "good [i.e. more expensive] beer" stand and the cheesesteak stand.
I've sat midfield in the 200s for international friendlies. My season tix for NYC are in 136 right behind SS goal. Both seats are great. YS atmosphere is phenomenal. Given the choice I'd get close to the supporters. So much more electric.
I sit in 127A and the seats are great. You miss a tiny bit of the near corner to the left, but otherwise I love the seats.
Sit as low as you can -- there is a moat separating you from the Legends seats, so there is never anyone walking in front of you and there is enough elevation to have a great view.
I would go to this website to check out the different views.
http://nycfc.io-media.com/
Overall, I think the views are pretty good - certainly better than one might think in a baseball stadium. I have sat behind the goal on the first base line and up in Section 208, first row. The Section 208 seats were really good - great view of the whole field. A little far from the supporters. My gut tells me that corner seats in the first few rows of the 2nd level are best, but I think it's really up to personal preference.
http://nycfc.io-media.com/
Overall, I think the views are pretty good - certainly better than one might think in a baseball stadium. I have sat behind the goal on the first base line and up in Section 208, first row. The Section 208 seats were really good - great view of the whole field. A little far from the supporters. My gut tells me that corner seats in the first few rows of the 2nd level are best, but I think it's really up to personal preference.
Does anyone have any info on the pier 40 rumor? God that would have been gorgeous.
My personal perspective is the following. For better or for worse we should get comfortable with little to no movement on the stadium until roughly 2018, when Deblasio hopefully leaves office. Looking at the track record of the city, no big or splashy projects get off the ground under a mayor with a (D) next to his name. And going off of Deblasio's public statements to move forward with a stadium in NYC right now, he is going to want something that is absolutely unacceptable to an ownership group like CFG. Off the top of my head here are some things that I can see Deblasio demanding that are both in line with his public statements on how he wants the city to run, and that will torpedo any deal we have.
1. Equivalent exchange of space. Deblasio will demand that there is no net loss of public park space however the stadium is built. We all live in NY or at least know enough about property values here to know this immediately kills the deal. At that point why just not buy a couple random blocks and sight the stadium where you want, it accomplishes the same thing.
2. No loss of NYC tax revenue. Deblasio could very simply say you are not going to get any tax breaks for a stadium while the schools/cops/fire department/infrastructure (pick one) of our city are in such shambles. Stadium economics are dodgy anyway no tax breaks kills the deal.
3. Must have local support for a stadium. Ha ha ha. You mean pay bribes to every Tom, Dick, and Gambino who wants theirs before we can contribute to the city.
I like to think of our wait for the next decade as a good thing. If CFG built a stadium right now, it would probably be some 25-40k person mini stadium. We wait 5-10 years and I think Yankees stadium is fully packed every single weekend, as in 50k+ people. What that looks like to me is something Sheik Mansoor looks at and says, what if I built a big stadium, like 80k+ and move the USMNT into it. People like the Sheik want to build a legacy, all you need to do is pitch it correctly.
My personal perspective is the following. For better or for worse we should get comfortable with little to no movement on the stadium until roughly 2018, when Deblasio hopefully leaves office. Looking at the track record of the city, no big or splashy projects get off the ground under a mayor with a (D) next to his name. And going off of Deblasio's public statements to move forward with a stadium in NYC right now, he is going to want something that is absolutely unacceptable to an ownership group like CFG. Off the top of my head here are some things that I can see Deblasio demanding that are both in line with his public statements on how he wants the city to run, and that will torpedo any deal we have.
1. Equivalent exchange of space. Deblasio will demand that there is no net loss of public park space however the stadium is built. We all live in NY or at least know enough about property values here to know this immediately kills the deal. At that point why just not buy a couple random blocks and sight the stadium where you want, it accomplishes the same thing.
2. No loss of NYC tax revenue. Deblasio could very simply say you are not going to get any tax breaks for a stadium while the schools/cops/fire department/infrastructure (pick one) of our city are in such shambles. Stadium economics are dodgy anyway no tax breaks kills the deal.
3. Must have local support for a stadium. Ha ha ha. You mean pay bribes to every Tom, Dick, and Gambino who wants theirs before we can contribute to the city.
I like to think of our wait for the next decade as a good thing. If CFG built a stadium right now, it would probably be some 25-40k person mini stadium. We wait 5-10 years and I think Yankees stadium is fully packed every single weekend, as in 50k+ people. What that looks like to me is something Sheik Mansoor looks at and says, what if I built a big stadium, like 80k+ and move the USMNT into it. People like the Sheik want to build a legacy, all you need to do is pitch it correctly.
Last edited:
Well the mayor is a doofus and I don't know how he got elected...I mean I know how, but...that's another conversation.
My fear is that we are doing well there and as long as the grounds hold up, there may be no reason to leave. In the end, I'm sure a stadium will be built, but the urgency is no longer there. On the plus side, they probably won't be settling on a sight now, so until the perfect location is available, we are staying put.
I disagree, i still feel the yankees are cautious about this. I mean it still has yet to rain hard when nycfc plays and also exposing it like that to see how the grass holds. Also the pitch was not too great against montreal, lots of players slipping bad.
But business wise, the yankees are making money. That may ease their cautiousness a tad.
true, that holds for now. But if any outfielders start getting injured for the yankees due to the field then they are going to start questioning the use of it.
still like you said, they are looking but are not going to pull the trigger right away since they may feel they have time.
Ten years everybody. Grab a beer and get comfy.
Care to back this up with some facts? What you are essentially saying here is that there were no big development projects in NYC that didn't occur during the 1994-2013 timeframe? How about the Javits Center, the original World Trade Center, Rockefeller Center and Lincoln Center? All at least started during the term of a Democrat mayor. Even if we were just limited to sports stadiums, Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, Madison Square Garden and The Arthur Ashe tennis center were all at least began under a Democrat mayor.
DeBlasio is an absolute boob, but please tell me why you think he should sacrifice tax revenue to help subsidize the richest family in the world building an NYCFC stadium. Can you argue that this new stadium will add more to the NY economy than is already being generated by their residence at Yankee Stadium?
Also, equivalent exchange of space is essentially state law and I don't think any mayor, Republican, Democrat or Independent, would argue against it.
While I agree with you for the most part that subsidizing stadiums should be limited, I think that argument is incredibly foolish. Why does it matter how rich the owner is? That does not change the economics of the project. Just because they are rich, does not mean they should be forced to lose more money on this project. If you and I were building this stadium, would it then be ok for the City to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars because we are relatively poor?
DeBlasio and the City should take the same approach to developers regardless of their wealth.
I get your point but I think the wealth of the owner does matter. Negotiation is all about understanding and utilizing options. If a couple of us forum peons wanted to build the stadium NYC would know that they either cough up the dough or the stadium doesn't get built. On the other hand if CFG wants to build a stadium the city has to believe, especially after OCFC just announced 100% private financing, that they can get CFG to pay more or all by saying they won't help.
What's the difference between the government handing some one money or paying a company directly/indirectly to pay someone money?
Either way, it's a wealth transfer. Building a stadium does create a job. I would rather people work than just receive a check. My two cents.
Either way, it's a wealth transfer. Building a stadium does create a job. I would rather people work than just receive a check. My two cents.
