Stadium Discussion

What Will Be The Name Of The New Home?

  • Etihad Stadium

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Etihad Park

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • Etihad Field

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Etihad Arena

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Etihad Bowl

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
My uninformed guess had been that stadium announcement and announcement of a women's team would come together, and the only reason they don't already have one now is the lack of venue, but you may be right.

It seems to me it would make sense for them to have a girls academy team starting now, (though their youth affiliates do have girls teams, which is a start) but I admit to being pretty unfamiliar with how that works, whether it is even possible without already having a NWSL team, etc.

My uninformed guess would be that a women's team will come before the stadium opens though possibly after it is announced (let's not forget that if the stadium is built properly and not rushed then there's at least an 18 month period between announcing the stadium and actually opening it, and that's assuming that work begins the day it's announced). I would assume that NYCFC II and NYCWFC would share a stadium rather than each going separate ways, although that is assuming the club finds a stadium to take over rather than sharing with an existing facility. If NYCWFC end up playing at Columbia University, for example, it would be unlikely that the club and the uni would want to shoehorn in a second professional club too.

I could possibly see the two playing at a club training ground although possibly not. Any training ground must logically be close enough to the city for the first team to train there - that's only common sense. However, that means that the training ground must be somewhere close enough to the city for the horrendous property prices, land availability, NIMBYism, etc to apply. In these circumstances I find it likely that the club would struggle to fit a full-sized training complex in plus a stadium with capacity to fit in several thousand fans - I don't see them wanting huge bleacher developments on their main training pitch either.

The idea that NYCFC II could play further afield is possible I suppose - this is something where US and European teams differ as a European team would never put its reserve team outside of the community its senior team played in, so I don't really feel qualified to comment on whether this is likely as my own bias/experiences affects my thinking. If that happened I have no idea if the women's team would move to match them or would stay in the city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
Hope this is true about the stadium as its the only thing NYCFC lacks at the moment and it will make a huge difference .
As for the area when they built the city academy it was a huge chemecal works which needed 2 years remedial work done on it also the were several buisneses around the area that CFG had to buy out all except one were willing to be moved to other better premises . t
The one that held out was a United fan and tried to sell 1 sq ft plots of land for £100 to try to keep city from building idont think he had anyone foolish enough to buy ant of these plots butManchester Council put a compusory purchace on the land and he was happy to sell it to city for a lot more then the council ere willing to pay.
So there is hope for a new stadiun for you lets hope its not too far into the future
£100/SF wouldn't be outrageous in NYC considering apartments go for $6,7,8,9,1000+ /SF depending on location, and that's just for a small portion of a plot of land considering how many other apartments are also on the site. Heck, I bet CFG would be happy to pay $144/sf (today's equivalent currency rate) in NYC, even if it's land next to a potential Superfund site, if that meant they could acquire all that was needed to push forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert and adam
Please excuse the poor photoshop, but with this stadium news, I think I figured out the reasoning behind the new jersey design and the boxes we got our seasons in. They plan use the design to highlight that the stadium will be the epicenter of NYC, and this has been one large coordinated design campaign. Do I need to take my tinfoil hat off, or am I on to something?
NYCFC center copy.jpg
 
£100/SF wouldn't be outrageous in NYC considering apartments go for $6,7,8,9,1000+ /SF depending on location, and that's just for a small portion of a plot of land considering how many other apartments are also on the site. Heck, I bet CFG would be happy to pay $144/sf (today's equivalent currency rate) in NYC, even if it's land next to a potential Superfund site, if that meant they could acquire all that was needed to push forward.

True, but he was talking about an area of Manchester - and an area of Manchester considered to be deprived and somewhat run-down and filled with empty commercial properties, at that. You can't compare NYC to that.

Besides, the point of it was less that the guy selling the land was trying to rake in cash, it was that he was trying to parcel off his land to United fans in general, and as many of them as possible. He was doing it not on the basis that they would want to use it but on the basis that they would all have no incentive to sell something they owned to their greatest rivals, and that MCFC would have to open talks individually with every single person who bought a parcel of land, which the guy was calculating would mean that the entire construction project ground to a halt and would be cancelled, thus sticking the proverbial middle finger up at MCFC. In the end the whole situation was only resolved when MCFC managed to obtain a Compulsory Purchase Order (aka Eminent Domain in the US), but it did slow the whole thing down by something like 6 months IIRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert and adam
True, but he was talking about an area of Manchester - and an area of Manchester considered to be deprived and somewhat run-down and filled with empty commercial properties, at that. You can't compare NYC to that.

Besides, the point of it was less that the guy selling the land was trying to rake in cash, it was that he was trying to parcel off his land to United fans in general, and as many of them as possible. He was doing it not on the basis that they would want to use it but on the basis that they would all have no incentive to sell something they owned to their greatest rivals, and that MCFC would have to open talks individually with every single person who bought a parcel of land, which the guy was calculating would mean that the entire construction project ground to a halt and would be cancelled, thus sticking the proverbial middle finger up at MCFC. In the end the whole situation was only resolved when MCFC managed to obtain a Compulsory Purchase Order (aka Eminent Domain in the US), but it did slow the whole thing down by something like 6 months IIRC.
Got it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
Please excuse the poor photoshop, but with this stadium news, I think I figured out the reasoning behind the new jersey design and the boxes we got our seasons in. They plan use the design to highlight that the stadium will be the epicenter of NYC, and this has been one large coordinated design campaign. Do I need to take my tinfoil hat off, or am I on to something?
View attachment 4369
Circles radiating out sort of like the earthquake from a few years ago?

Epicenter.gif
 
Please excuse the poor photoshop, but with this stadium news, I think I figured out the reasoning behind the new jersey design and the boxes we got our seasons in. They plan use the design to highlight that the stadium will be the epicenter of NYC, and this has been one large coordinated design campaign. Do I need to take my tinfoil hat off, or am I on to something?
View attachment 4369
I think you might just be on something ;)
 
Hmm. I'm very much a hardliner opposed to public subsidies for sports arenas and stadiums, but this article seems to be engaging in its own obfuscation to make this new deal seem worse than it is.. It really isn't clear, and I think that's intentional, but it seems that the deal went from (1) the local counties fronting all costs in return for owning the facility, rent and an enforceable commitment that OCSC stays a long time, to (2) OCSC building the stadium,while the counties still pay pay for sewer and infrastructure improvements, OCSC owns the building, pays taxes instead of rent, and has a shorter less onerous commitment to stay.
He specifies how much the counties will pay for improvements, but never says how much stadium construction is. If OCSC is going to pay that, and again, I think they have and he just wants to hide it, then that's the key value component on that side of the deal, and he writes as if it didn't exist.
 
Hmm. I'm very much a hardliner opposed to public subsidies for sports arenas and stadiums, but this article seems to be engaging in its own obfuscation to make this new deal seem worse than it is.. It really isn't clear, and I think that's intentional, but it seems that the deal went from (1) the local counties fronting all costs in return for owning the facility, rent and an enforceable commitment that OCSC stays a long time, to (2) OCSC building the stadium,while the counties still pay pay for sewer and infrastructure improvements, OCSC owns the building, pays taxes instead of rent, and has a shorter less onerous commitment to stay.
He specifies how much the counties will pay for improvements, but never says how much stadium construction is. If OCSC is going to pay that, and again, I think they have and he just wants to hide it, then that's the key value component on that side of the deal, and he writes as if it didn't exist.

I also thought it didn't seem quite as bad as the article made it out to be. His main point seemed to be that there is reason to be concerned that the total city revenues and payments for the stadium will not cover the payments on the bonds already issued, and thus that it is disingenuous to say that the team has relieved the city of the need to pay for the stadium.
 
I also thought it didn't seem quite as bad as the article made it out to be. His main point seemed to be that there is reason to be concerned that the total city revenues and payments for the stadium will not cover the payments on the bonds already issued, and thus that it is disingenuous to say that the team has relieved the city of the need to pay for the stadium.
Exactly. And that's a fair point. It does seem that OCSC is overselling it's new deal as a boon to local government. My beef is that the article seems to oversell the negatives. If he made the more accurate limited point clearly I'd be completely on his side.
 
I wonder where Orlando City SC is relocation to eventually?
When I think big cities in Florida, it's Orlando and Miami -- but further investigation says that Tampa is bigger than Orlando and JACKSONVILLE is twice the size of Miami. Would they dare move to Jacksonville, with a USL team already there? Maybe somewhere else in the south? Very strange. They should be happy where they are.
 
I wonder where Orlando City SC is relocation to eventually?
While they have the ability to relocate per the city, there's no way MLS will let them if they sell out games. MLS wants the Florida market, and the only other MLS team to relocate - the original SJ Clash team - had horrible attendence which was a big reason for the move. By alluding to the potential for a move, I think the Vice article was making some news by stiring the pot.
 
Hmm. I'm very much a hardliner opposed to public subsidies for sports arenas and stadiums, but this article seems to be engaging in its own obfuscation to make this new deal seem worse than it is.. It really isn't clear, and I think that's intentional, but it seems that the deal went from (1) the local counties fronting all costs in return for owning the facility, rent and an enforceable commitment that OCSC stays a long time, to (2) OCSC building the stadium,while the counties still pay pay for sewer and infrastructure improvements, OCSC owns the building, pays taxes instead of rent, and has a shorter less onerous commitment to stay.
He specifies how much the counties will pay for improvements, but never says how much stadium construction is. If OCSC is going to pay that, and again, I think they have and he just wants to hide it, then that's the key value component on that side of the deal, and he writes as if it didn't exist.

It may just be that I wasn't brought up with the experience of US government or sports team relocations etc but there are some bits of this that I just don't buy. OK, sure, I get the argument about the debt repayments not being covered by property tax, though the article neatly sidesteps the issue that if the local authority had had to shell out the additional $65m then it's debt repayments on the higher amount would've been far higher and the fixed rent wouldn't have made up the difference. However, I can't see the other points he makes.

Under the new deal, OCSC have to buy the land outright, so that entails automatic income to the city, and as the landowners it is only right that they have no extra rent prices to pay and that they take over the management (and therefore revenue) of the stadium. The idea that a city legislature should believe it has a right to operate the stadium and take its profits is nonsense. I also don't get the arguments about fears that the team will sell up. Yes, ok, they might just do that, but if they do then tough, deal with it. The city doesn't own the team and can't expect a cash cow which has fallen into their lap to also act like it's in some kind of bondage to them meaning they have an obligation to stay put and keep giving the city that lovely green. Businesses don't work like that. If they want to leave they can, end of story. As the article itself points out, in order to leave they have to either sell the land again (suggesting some kind of beneficial replacement anyway) or swallow the costs of owning two stadia with one mothballed, which is hardly attractive to a sports team.

I don't know. Is it the culture difference here or am I missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul
It may just be that I wasn't brought up with the experience of US government or sports team relocations etc but there are some bits of this that I just don't buy. OK, sure, I get the argument about the debt repayments not being covered by property tax, though the article neatly sidesteps the issue that if the local authority had had to shell out the additional $65m then it's debt repayments on the higher amount would've been far higher and the fixed rent wouldn't have made up the difference. However, I can't see the other points he makes.

Under the new deal, OCSC have to buy the land outright, so that entails automatic income to the city, and as the landowners it is only right that they have no extra rent prices to pay and that they take over the management (and therefore revenue) of the stadium. The idea that a city legislature should believe it has a right to operate the stadium and take its profits is nonsense. I also don't get the arguments about fears that the team will sell up. Yes, ok, they might just do that, but if they do then tough, deal with it. The city doesn't own the team and can't expect a cash cow which has fallen into their lap to also act like it's in some kind of bondage to them meaning they have an obligation to stay put and keep giving the city that lovely green. Businesses don't work like that. If they want to leave they can, end of story. As the article itself points out, in order to leave they have to either sell the land again (suggesting some kind of beneficial replacement anyway) or swallow the costs of owning two stadia with one mothballed, which is hardly attractive to a sports team.

I don't know. Is it the culture difference here or am I missing something?
Pretty spot on. The article appears to be crazy slanted. I noticed some of the additional points you raised as well, and left them out just to keep the post short.