the writer continually writes, "the MLS" - geez....
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Really interesting article. I think it's confirmed what we've all thought which is that we're not going anywhere any time soon. And why would we? Because of Yankee ownership the costs to use the stadium are probably minimal. They have the ability to expand seating any time they want. The real problem is fan experience (viewing angles) and field size. Maybe they could some how move some walls or make some movable so the field can be expanded to a normal size.
LOL "the Harrison, N.J. Red Bulls."
But wait, there's more. In a surprise move Mayor de Blasio has announced a new initiative to move the garment district to Brooklyn and to rezone that area of midtown.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170228/REAL_ESTATE/170229888
Garment Stadium: confirmed. #re-electMayorDeB
I'm not saying its rent free but I'm sure they're paying less than a team renting a stadium from a team w/o semi-controlling interest.
This is clearly an opinion piece from an idiot: "The question can be raised – does NYCFC even want its own stadium?" That's the same question as, "Does NYCFC even want to win MLS Cup?"
There was a deal in place, everything ready to go, but it happened too late into the Bloomberg administration and since de Blasio won the Democratic primary instead of Quinn, everything fell through.
This person will be eating their words...
Eating their words in... 5 years? 10 years?
Of course it's an opinion piece, but it's a valid opinion that many of us share.
Couldn't get through the entire thing. Posted on our teams SB Nation page and constantly uses 'The MLS.'
Has great information but clearly just taking shots at our 'failures.'
Compares us to a Jets bid and how the jets are valued at 5x the price and had support for a stadium but couldn't make it happen. Then goes on to state that their stadium was $2.2 Billion. BILLION.
That's after mentioning our proposed plan was $350 Million.
This dude does understand numbers right? That's 6.5x more. How the hell do you even make that comparison. He states jets planned to pay for 3/4 of it. THE PUBLIC STILL HAS TO PAY FOR $550 MILLION YOU BAFFOON.
If we agree to pay for let's say 1/2 of ours that leaves $175 for public to cover. How do you compare the two?
That and he has 0 facts relating to any of what he's saying. He throws out all these numbers and all these apparent handshake deals and then goes on to say that the reason everyone is uneasy about us is because we keep everything private and info is solely dependent on leaks.
So his numbers and 'deals' are nothing but rumor. The guy could have even read through this thread and gathered the same shit.
Yeah.. No.
Has great information but clearly just taking shots at our 'failures.'
Compares us to a Jets bid and how the jets are valued at 5x the price and had support for a stadium but couldn't make it happen. Then goes on to state that their stadium was $2.2 Billion. BILLION.
That's after mentioning our proposed plan was $350 Million.
This dude does understand numbers right? That's 6.5x more. How the hell do you even make that comparison. He states jets planned to pay for 3/4 of it. THE PUBLIC STILL HAS TO PAY FOR $550 MILLION YOU BAFFOON.
If we agree to pay for let's say 1/2 of ours that leaves $175 for public to cover. How do you compare the two?
That and he has 0 facts relating to any of what he's saying. He throws out all these numbers and all these apparent handshake deals and then goes on to say that the reason everyone is uneasy about us is because we keep everything private and info is solely dependent on leaks.
So his numbers and 'deals' are nothing but rumor. The guy could have even read through this thread and gathered the same shit.
Yeah.. No.
NickFromAstoria
Registered
Well, the best phrasing would probably be "How badly do they want a stadium?" It's clear that there is (or was) interest - but do they now feel that the hassle is no longer worth it from a cost/benefit perspective?
Oh thank goodness there's a couple blocks that might not have luxury condos and a Pret a Manger yet.
His points about Columbia and the UAE are nonsensical despite the gloss of logic. Let's start with his assertion that Robert Kraft would oppose a deal between Columbia and CFG because of CFG's ties to the UAE and Kraft being pro-Israel and a major donor to Columbia. You could argue that is possible, except you need to deal with the reality that Kraft is already a partner with CFG himself through MLS and single entity ownership. He did not publicly oppose CFG buying into MLS, there are no reports that he did so behind the scenes, and no evidence that he has ever attempted to thwart CFG or NYCFC in any endeavor at all except for the routine competition among all MLS teams. Yet now we are supposed to assume that Kraft would go all out to stop Columbia from partnering with an entity that Kraft is already doing business with. It's just stupid.
Then the is the supposed opposition from left-leaning students to the University partnering with the UAE for LGBT/women's issues and such. The first problem is that the University already partners with the Saudis -- whose record is at best comparable to the UAE -- in multiple ways, including for example the Institute of Diplomatic Studies - Saudi Arabia Executive Program. To my knowledge there has been no organized student opposition to this or other Columbia/Saudi partnerships. On top of that, Edward Said spent decades as a Columbia Professor (he died in 2003) basically defending the Middle East and Islam against any and all Western criticism. He criticized Islam and certain ME governments himself but never brooked any criticism from outside. It is the basis of his most famous and influential work Orientalism. There was never been any sustained opposition to him or his writings or his political activities at the university, and his academic legacy lives on there. To the extent any opposition did exist it came from the right, not the left, which has largely accepted Said's arguments that Western criticism of the Middle East is always suspect. I'm not going to argue politics but if you predict that a left wing student body is about to rise up against a partnership with the UAE you are oblivious to reality.
The article's entire discussion of mythical opposition to a Columbia/CFG partnership is absurd. I could see the student opposing a deal in support of the community opposition, but not because of the UAE ties.
Now, having demolished (at least to my satisfaction) his entire discussion of the CU situation, I need to reject anything he says about other subjects with which I am less informed.
But the funny twist is despite his idiocy I think his conclusion is close to correct. I do not believe the team is happy with the current situation but I do think he is right that MLS and CFG have both made mistakes and we are likely not very close to any resolution of the stadium situation.
Then the is the supposed opposition from left-leaning students to the University partnering with the UAE for LGBT/women's issues and such. The first problem is that the University already partners with the Saudis -- whose record is at best comparable to the UAE -- in multiple ways, including for example the Institute of Diplomatic Studies - Saudi Arabia Executive Program. To my knowledge there has been no organized student opposition to this or other Columbia/Saudi partnerships. On top of that, Edward Said spent decades as a Columbia Professor (he died in 2003) basically defending the Middle East and Islam against any and all Western criticism. He criticized Islam and certain ME governments himself but never brooked any criticism from outside. It is the basis of his most famous and influential work Orientalism. There was never been any sustained opposition to him or his writings or his political activities at the university, and his academic legacy lives on there. To the extent any opposition did exist it came from the right, not the left, which has largely accepted Said's arguments that Western criticism of the Middle East is always suspect. I'm not going to argue politics but if you predict that a left wing student body is about to rise up against a partnership with the UAE you are oblivious to reality.
The article's entire discussion of mythical opposition to a Columbia/CFG partnership is absurd. I could see the student opposing a deal in support of the community opposition, but not because of the UAE ties.
Now, having demolished (at least to my satisfaction) his entire discussion of the CU situation, I need to reject anything he says about other subjects with which I am less informed.
But the funny twist is despite his idiocy I think his conclusion is close to correct. I do not believe the team is happy with the current situation but I do think he is right that MLS and CFG have both made mistakes and we are likely not very close to any resolution of the stadium situation.
NickFromAstoria
Registered
Yeah, the opposition from Ydanis Rodriguez is orders of magnitude more important than what random people think of the UAE.
Any direct or indirect reference to the Gell-Mann effect is sincerely appreciated
Wow, I didn't have a chance to read it, but if that's one of his premises, then it's going to just piss me off. You're blaming the stadium situation on ROBERT KRAFT??? Because he's pro-Israel? And what does that even mean? Has he come out against Palestinian rights, or a two-state solution? Or is he just zionistic in believing in his peoples indigenous right to an an autonomous homeland? Israel might not have diplomatic relations with many ME nations, but they still do work together behind the scenes for peaceful goals. Saudi Arabia being a nation that comes to mind right away. I want to read it for myself first, but if that's his premise, than it really stinks of classic anti-semitism. I hope I'm understanding this wrong, because otherwise, damn.
Similar threads
